Climate change deniers’ last gasp
Muriel Newman has a comment in this morning’s Dominion Post titled ‘Climate change, we didn’t do it.‘ As though that, if that were true, it would be a good enough reason to ignore climate change. The column is not online but she makes a similar argument at the Centre for Political Research, where she alleges:
that climate change is caused by natural forces not human activity. It is an unstoppable process and any attempts that are made to try to control it are futile, political and expensive.
Her evidence for this is based on conference she recently attended in New York, where the last remaining climate change deniers gathered from around the world and attempted to convince us not to believe the scientific consensus reached by virtually all the world’s leading climate scientists that climate change is dramatic and is caused by human activity.
The Independent described the conference thus:
The first international conference designed to question the scientific consensus on climate change is being sponsored by a right-wing American think-tank which receives money from the oil industry.The same group has tried to undermine the link between passive smoking and health problems and has accepted donations from a major tobacco company.
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York appears to be a conventional exchange of ideas on the science of global warming. Yet it is organised by the Heartland Institute of Chicago, which has opposed much of the science of climate change and passive smoking.
While many people now accept the consensus on climate change may be wrong, it is because evidence now seems to show change is happening faster than we thought. It is pleasing sign that the Heartland conference and Muriel Newman’s attempts to get it picked up here have received very little coverage in the media.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Let’s compare the thoughtful reflections of just one of the scientists who attended the conference, against those crude smears and propaganda of a mildly hysterical Independent:-
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/03/05/heartland-climate-conference-summa ry/
It seems the more the evidence piles up against the global warming theory, the more shrill and strident the propaganda.
- “While many people now accept the consensus on climate change may be wrong, it is because evidence now seems to show change is happening faster than we thought.”
You’re finally recognising that the (actually non-existent) consensus could be wrong.
Next time any Green politician tries the dishonest tactic of mentioning a supposed consensus we shall all be free to quote you that “many people now accept the consensus on climate change may be wrong.”
March 13th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Muriel!
http://hot-topic.co.nz/2008/02/05/being-economical-with-the-truth-or-l ying-through-her-teeth/
“This may be what Muriel fervently believes, but it is also completely untrue. So untrue, in fact, that saying it in an attempt to influence public policy amounts to lying. Sadly, in the echo chamber of truthiness around her web site, she gets taken at face value. Out in the wider world, it simply leaves her credibility in tatters.”
March 13th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
is that this conference?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held -a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/
March 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
stuey,
I wouldn’t put too much store by realclimate if I were you.
These are the people that created the Hockeystick and who consistently rubbished those who exposed it as the work of complete incompetence that it is.
Moreover, their policy of deleting posts which identify the flaws in their relentless distortions has earned the site the nickname of “realcensorship.com”
They have painted themselves into a corner and the more the evidence falls apart the more they ratchet up the politics to try and compensate.
March 13th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Gristmill has ready made responses to Mouldwarp and Co [#33 Section 2/c ]
Specifically, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
* the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49
March 13th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Hey Mouldwarp, you ever studied the history of science? There’s that whole thing about people don’t change their mind about scientific theories, they just stick to their guns and point blank argue in the face of evidence and then eventually they all die out and only the younger ones who believe the new theory are left. Hmm? That’s you and your septic pals. Believe what you want, there’s no point in rebuting you.
P.S. Tell me, are you anti all the rest of science? Are there other areas of human scientific knowledge where you believe that all the scientists, all the scientific organisations, and all the scientific press are wrong?
March 13th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
jh,
- “* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability”
Absolute nonsense. There is plenty of evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was *at least* as warm as today.
- “* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2″
Here you are assuming the very thing that is being questioned.
- “* the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels”
Quite so. Thank goodness for fossil fuels.
- “* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue”
Again, you are assuming the very thing that is being questioned. CO2 is just a tiny influence on the climate. Incidentally, we are actually heading towards a solar minimum which promises decades of significant cooling.
- “* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.”
The history shows that the climate often changes quickly and dramatically. There is nothing new going on right now. Meanwhile, the benefits to humanity from the fossil fuels are too vast to be calculated.
Hey Stuey, you ever studied the history of science? There’s that whole thing about people don’t change their mind about scientific theories, they just stick to their guns and point blank argue in the face of evidence and then eventually they all die out and only the younger ones who believe the new theory are left. Hmm? That’s you and your septic pals. Believe what you want, there’s no point in rebuting you.
- “P.S. Tell me, are you anti all the rest of science? Are there other areas of human scientific knowledge where you believe that all the scientists, all the scientific organisations, and all the scientific press are wrong?”
You seem to have swallowed the “consensus” story hook, line and sinker. You should try and read more widely.
Besides which, even the Green blogger here says that “many people now accept the consensus on climate change may be wrong.”
March 13th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Mouldwarp is talking out of his posterior orifice. Again.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:08 am
If the IPCC estimates are wrong because they are low, and so far that is EXACTLY what appears to be happening.
You will accept anything if it allows you to avoid having to admit that collective action to prevent altering the environment of the planet is required. This is actually a REQUIREMENT if we want to maintain the sort of population we have, but that conflicts with Libertarian ideals and we cannot allow that. I personally take the point of view that we CANNOT sustain the population we have. We are already in overshoot due to the overuse of and reliance on cheap fossil fuels. I can be wrong, but ONLY if we do things collectively that we cannot do individually. I don’t think we will…. and I think a lot of people’s lives are going to end prematurely as a result.
Let’s look again at the situation over the past 150 years… CO2 rising and increased warmth. The models are pretty clear and you have to provide a link to explain your solar cycle theory and I want to see how the physics of the CO2 which does explain the warming, doesn’t do anything while the solar does all the work. What fraction of the increased CO2 belongs to us? Would it be a LARGE fraction? When did it EVER increase as fast as it did in the past 100 years and just exactly what does it mean to burn half the fossil fuels laid down in the past 50 Million years in the past 100?
Once more into the breach. I haven’t the time for much today.. and tomorrow isn’t looking much better… actually worse, but someone has to answer you.
WHAT evidence? A la-nina? Bottom of an 11 year solar cycle and the best we do is break-even?
respectfully
BJ
March 14th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Just to clear up some of the non-sientific claims on the article above.
* The Heartland Institute has made it clear that no corporate funds at all were used to help pay for the conference. It was entirely financed by individuals and foundations with no financial interest in the subject of global warming.
* All 50 cosponsors of the conference are listed in the program for the event, none of them is a corporation, and none of them made a financial contribution toward the event, so their funding is irrelevant. Cosponsors were asked to help promote the event (on their web sites and in mailings to their members) in exchange for limited numbers of free tickets, a standard cosponsorship arrangement for conferences of this kind.
* The Heartland Institute receives about 16% of its total income from corporations, the rest comes from individuals and foundations. No one corporation has EVER contributed more than 5% of Heartland’s annual budget. All energy companies COMBINED in 2007 gave less than 5% of the organization’s total budget. ExxonMobil hasn’t contributed since 2006. If funding determines a think tank’s perspective, then you might expect Heartland to be 95% in favor of global warming alarmism!
* Heartland’s alleged “links� to tobacco and oil companies are part of a smear campaign against it and other conservative and libertarian think tanks in the U.S., being waged by a few liberal front groups. The truth is that Heartland, like virtually all other think tanks and advocacy groups, accepts gifts from corporations, but it has policies in place that ensure the integrity of its research. Those policies are plainly posted on its Web site. Funding from oil and tobacco companies has never amounted to more than 5% of Heartland’s budget, and Heartland has never took positions on oil or tobacco issues at odds with its stated mission and perspective. No oil or tobacco executives have ever worked for The Heartland Institute, and none currently serve on its Board of Directors. This too is plainly posted on Heartland’s Web site.
* The Heartland Institute has been operating for 24 years, has 2,700 donors and supporters, and has been publishing books, policy studies, and holding conferences on global warming for 15 years. It is a credible and respected voice in the debate. The way some reporters attempt to portray Heartland because it dares to voice a “skeptical� perspective on climate change speaks volumes about media bias.
March 14th, 2008 at 5:23 am
My name is Brian Costin, and I am the Assistant Director of Government Relations at the Heartland Institute and I would like to point out the following information in response the blog posting.
To say that the panelists that attended the conference are not numerous, or accomplished in the field of the climate change is simply unfounded if not deliberately misleading. The panelists at The Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change include scientists and economists who have been published thousands of times in the world’s leading scientific journals and have written hundreds of books on the issue of climate change.
This group of more than 200 scientists and other experts on climate change, from Australia, Canada, England, France, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Sweden, and of course the United States.
They are from the University of Alabama, Arizona State, Carleton, Central Queensland, Delaware, Durham, and Florida State University. From George Mason, Harvard, The Institute Pasteur in Paris, James Cook, John Moores, Johns Hopkins, and the London School of Economics. From The University of Mississippi, Monash, Nottingham, Ohio State, Oregon State, Oslo, Ottawa, Rochester, Rockefeller, and the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm. And from the Russian Academy of Sciences, Suffolk University, the University of Virginia, Westminster School of Business (in London), and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Also, let us not forget the honorable President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Claus. Also, more than 50 international NGO’s were represented at the event.
Also, private individuals with no connections to the energy industry funded the entirety of our conference. The combined amount of the modest honoraria offered to the speakers amounted to less money than Al Gore makes for a single speech. A large number of speakers nevertheless turned down any honorarium whatsoever.
You can check out the bios of the entire conference lineup at: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/program.cfm and for more background on The Heartland Institute’s position on climate change legislation at http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:32 am
Mans effort to control the earths climate within a very narrow +-0.5 degree temperature is laudable, but ultimately completely futile.
This is like a follow up discussion from a previous one where us realisists (not “deniers” frog but “realists”) quite clearly showed the earth has gone through cyclically temperature variations between +2 and -8 degrees.
http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2008/03/04/did-global-warming-stop -in-january/
The fact that the Vostok ice Core Temperature graphs shows quite clearly that having burns fossil fuel over the last thousand years has actually prevented the earth cycle from dropping to -8 again.
No, the reality is that man cannot maintain the very narrow static temparature range currently enjoyed and that long term the earth will cool again.
The realist in me suggest that mans ability to cope with change will be the key to survival not trying to maintain the impossible of keeping temperatures on an even keel.
When the next ice age comes, or alternatively if you believe the planet will still get hotter (it does not really matter which scenario you choose) it is the ability to change with the tide that will see maybe 1 in 10,000 survive to see the 23 century.
One thing is for sure, as BJ points out, mankind finds it impossible to cooperate for a central goal. (Look at Africa, enough furtile land available to feed the entire continent, yet the people cannot cooperate to feed themselves).
it is this inability to cooperate that will kill 9,999 in 10,000. Not the planet.
We can live with anything the planet can throw at us. Heck we can do as BJ would like and move into space or, as I would prefer, move below the ocean and use deep bores into the earths molten centre to gain energy for the survival.
Another option is to build light reflectors in space to heat or cool the earth as required but again, can humans actually work together to achieve this?
And if we do, who will play God and say, yes we will cool the earth slightly so that the Sahara dessert can beome furtile.
But to do this those people currently living in Canada will need to move as their territory becomes covered in ice.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Brian Costin
Thank you very much for setting the record straight, sadly those of us who agree with you have to battle this type of left wing propaganda on a daily basis.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Mouldwarp- not currently being at a record temperature level does not stop the trend from being alarming. A trend is related to the shape of the graph, not the height of a point on it, and the latest trends in temperature and CO2 levels do not fit the long-term trend in a way that has been plausibly explained by skeptics. We know about variance in the sun, axis wobbles, etc… but these still do not adequately explain our variation from the long-term trend that we do know for a fact is both natural and safe.
I appreciate that you’re picking calm and rational arguments out for your case, which is good. However, if we’re going to pick calm and rational arguments for skeptics, we should also focus on the numerous calm and rational arguments from advocates of climate destabilisation, too. Let’s ignore the unsupported claims, whether they’re missing logic or factual backup.
The paper you linked by William M. Briggs is not convincing. He references or links no material for his claims at all- He claims we haven’t taken errors in estimation into account, (which could well be true) but does not give data on what those error margins are likely to be.
He states that we do not fully understand the nature of all of our carbon emissions, which while true, is incredibly misleading. We do know that we are net emitters of billions of tonnes of carbon a year, which is sufficient data to know that we are indeed going to induce some sort of global climate change on its own, although on its own this might not be worrying. He also mentions that we know that CO2 levels have historically been increasing, but fails to address the transparent fact that even using only raw data and not backdated models, we still have an alarmingly unprecedented rise in CO2 levels that does not follow the slope or shape of the natural CO2 cycle that skeptics are so fond of, and that the CO2 peak has overtaken temperature level, which was not observed at all in our ice core data of global climate cycles.
He also expresses surprise that climate models are not certain. Firstly, no scientist ever expects complete certainty, so let’s give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s simply referring to a lack of a standard accepted model. While this is true, the fundamental conclusions that models incorporating all the facts we plug in come to are in quite surprising agreement, suggesting that while our models aren’t certain, they’re good enough to work with- just like Newton’s laws of motion were good enough until Einstein added on relativity.
If he’s right that studies have failed to show their error margins systematically, it should be easy enough for him, with a little consultation, to try adding them in to those studies. If they’ve been overconfident, then it should break the conclusion relatively easily. Why sit back and preach with an essay when you can actually just point to the numbers?
I am still waiting for a skeptical analysis that can supply numbers that are relevant to the larger context of CO2 forcings and departure from long-term trends.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:59 am
Thanks Brian. One more nail in the coffin of the AGW hysteria.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:24 am
Brian Costin,
Thank you for your post. You mention that hundreds of scientists attended the Heartland Institute’s confererence. This is not that relevant unless you can list what their areas of expertise are.
I am a scientist, but if I was to attend, for example, a conference on some area of medical research, it would be incorrect to claim I was an expert in the field. In fact, I probably know no more on medicine than the average lay person on the street. The same thing applies to most scientists when it comes to climate research; they simply are not experts, and there is no reason to assume they know more or less on climate research than Joe Bloggs off the street.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:30 am
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/program.cfm
Check out the sponsors pdf
Interestingly one of which is the NZ business roundtable
March 14th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I don’t get any sense of “them and us” amongst scientists in the climate debate, after all the IPCC beats the Muriel Newmans conference.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Every time the radical Greens mouth their opinions on something like party pills or the innocence of the Urewera 17 it weakens their credibility on issues like climate change.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Costin must be pretty busy if he’s posting on the NEW ZEALAND Green’s forum!
March 14th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Jh: yeah, given that the IPCC operates on a consensus basis and includes almost everyone, I don’t see why people have reason to complain about any of its findings, other than perhaps not having gotten involved in the process.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am
And the 2008 Nobel Prize for physics goes to … Mouldwarp!
For developing the science that supersedes quantum theory.
For mathematically showing, contrary to previous theory, that molecules with the dipole moments of greenhouse gases will not emit heat that warms surrounding gaseous molecules when bombarded with infa-red radiation.
For testing this in the laboratory, with each of CO2, N2O and CH4.
For identifying the flaws in the series of previous experiments that demonstrated different results.
For having his research and experiments peer reviewed.
For having his results published in a reputable scientific journal.
Thanks for all this, Mouldwarp. Now I can relax and forget about global warming, sit back, look through my office window, and enjoy the sight of the pigs pirouetting in the sky outside.
March 14th, 2008 at 10:26 am
OK,
I see that bios of all the speakers are available from the website that Brian Costin provided a link to. The link doesn’t work for me, but I assume there is enough information there to assess if the speakers are experts in climate science.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:30 am
What an excellent lively debate - pity about the personal attacks though, how very unGreen.
Uncertainty about global warming is the key to promoting more rigorous science and greater understanding so I am happy to see Heartland gathering these people together, even if the clear links to the oil industry are somewhat peculiar, everyone must have their say.
Climate change has become a metaphor for the banal consumerism of modernity and the direction of human culture in the 21st Century, it is about more than just CO2 emissions but includes ideology on waste, environmental guardianship, responsibility for each other, and the differences between rationality and the unconscious human animal.
That’s why “Climate Change” has captured the public imagination, not because it demonstrates an elegant theoretical framework within climate science, but because it awakens instincts we don’t get from MTV. The Green stance on BZP or anti-terror legislation, or indeed climate change, is synergistic with the effort to make the world a better place for all.
March 14th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
toad,
Your sarcasm is unjust and unwarranted. Remember your quote in the previous discussion (linked in my comment above) that we were all “silly christians”? Most unwarranted and shows your inability to debate at length or strength.
remember my question back then?
Well here it is again and could you please answer?
“a 0.5 degree increase over 150 years is proof of what?
It is nothing when temperature variation have occured from -8 to +2.”
Another question to for you.
How will you propose to maintain the earths temperature at +-1 of todays temperature?
How will you propose we stop the earth cyclical temperature variations?
At least Mouldwarp, BJ, Ari and the others have a point of view to discuss.
All you have is witless sarcasm.
Come up with a few answers to how to “control” climate change (both up and down) on this earth.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Gerrit, while I’ll admit to sarcasm at Mouldwarp’s expense, because he finds it very difficult to conduct a rational argument on almost any issue on this blog, I don’t agree that my sarcasm is witless or shows an abilty to debate at length or strength.
The point I was making is that accepted theories of physics predict that the greenhouse effect will occur, and that experiments in a controlled environment show that it does occur. If someone wants to deny this, they need to come up with either the scientific theory that shows why it will not occur, and/or conduct experiments in a controlled environment that demonstrate it does not occur. Mouldwarp fails to do either.
The atmosphere, of course, is not a controlled environment. So a 0.5 degree increase over 150 years in evidence of nothing more than a 0.5 degree increase over 150 years, because the atmosphere is an uncontrolled envronment in which many factors other than the greenhouse effect come into play.
The greenhouse effect would still be occurring even if there were actually a medium-term trend to cooler atmospheric temperatures because other cooling factors outweigh the warming ones of the greenhouse effect.
Those other factors (and some such as sunspots are cyclical, while others, such as volcanic eruptions are not) won’t last forever, and the long-term effect of increased greenhouse emissions will inevitably be increased atmospheric temperatures. The science tells us that.
The debate should therefore be not about what it is happening, as the science tells us what is happening, but what its effects will be, how fast they will occur, and what we can do to both mitigate it and adapt to it.
And I’m not proposing we can stop the earth’s cyclical temerature variations, or should even attempt to. What I am proposing is that we should not interfere with those natural cycles by pouring untold billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
As for your reference to me saying “we were all silly christians” you misquote me. What I actually said was “Some of you are starting to sound like those silly Christians who insisted the Earth was flat, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary…”
I wasn’t calling all anthropogenic climate change deniers “silly Christians”, nor was I calling all Christians silly (I actually know some very rational and sensible Christians, as well as some very silly ones). I was likening some anthropogenic climate change deniers to those particular Christians who insisted the Earth was flat in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.
March 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Oops - meant “…an inability…”
March 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
toad,
fair comment.
“The debate should therefore be not about what it is happening, as the science tells us what is happening, but what its effects will be, how fast they will occur, and what we can do to both mitigate it and adapt to it.”
That has been my argument all along.
As I said in my previous comment
“When the next ice age comes, or alternatively, if you believe the planet will still get hotter (it does not really matter which scenario you choose) it is the ability to change with the tide that will see maybe 1 in 10,000 survive to see the 23 century.
One thing is for sure, as BJ points out, mankind finds it impossible to cooperate for a central goal. (Look at Africa, enough furtile land available to feed the entire continent, yet the people cannot cooperate to feed themselves).
it is this inability to cooperate that will kill 9,999 in 10,000. Not the planet.
We can live with anything the planet can throw at us. Heck we can do as BJ would like and move into space or, as I would prefer, move below the ocean and use deep bores into the earths molten centre to gain energy for the survival.
Another option is to build light reflectors in space to heat or cool the earth as required but again, can humans actually work together to achieve this?
And if we do, who will play God and say, yes we will cool the earth slightly so that the Sahara dessert can beome furtile.
But to do this those people currently living in Canada will need to move as their territory becomes covered in ice.”
March 14th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Actually Gerrit I found Toads earlier posting very funny.
Most of us find the hard evidence that climate change is happening to be overwhelming - such as the arctic summer ice melt frog referred to earlier.
I would very much love to see the debate to move on to real discussion about the fairest, most practical way of preventing and minimising the impacts of climate change - both on people and on all the other species that co-exist on planet earth with us .
I find it frustrating that instead the debate is dominated by the tedious pseudo scientific arguments that so many climate change deniers like Moulwarp keep indulging in. YAWN
At least Toad’s posting made me laugh - which Mouldwarp’s postings never do.
March 14th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Awarua Bay,
If sarcasm tickles you funny bone, good for you.
I find the put downs offensive but hey, that me.
One thing I have noticed is that global warming has now been subtly retitled climate change.
A small but significant change allowing for global cooling as well as warming.
Would you agree with my statement that
Mankind cannot possibly ‘control” climate change within the +-1 percent range we currently need to keep this planet in a state where no further climate change is possible (in otherwords we can prevent the earths cyclical temperature variations between +2 and -8).
We will need to find a way to do this in order as you say to “preventing and minimising the impacts of climate change - both on people and on all the other species that co-exist on planet earth with us”.
Do you honestly believe mankind can do this?
Because that is the crux of the matter.
We cant even cooperate to feed the startving millions, so what chance of controlling climate.
Sorry but mankind and most other species that inhabit the earth at present are heading the way of the dinosour. Not many will survive unless we can adept to the +2 to -8 temperature variations.
Once we are gone the earth will keep revolving for another couple of million years and other life forms will evolve just as human and the animal companions we now have, did.
It will not be possible in my opinion for the current species inhabiting the earth to remain on in the form they are in rught now, ad infinitum.
March 14th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Gerrit, I didn’t really mean it as a put-down - I just get very annoyed with the few people on this blog (Mouldwarp, BluePeter and BigBro spring to mind), who make what they claim are statements of fact without producing any evidence to substantiate them.
So I take the piss on occasion. While you and I may disagree on some things (but from posts I’ve seen from you on Auckland public transport largely agree on at least that issue), I think that we have a reasoned debate on that and most other issues.
The people who annoy me are those who stray onto this blog from some other space where they think they can abuse people and make proclamations of fact with no evidence to substantiate them.
And I don’t abuse Mouldwarp, I just take the piss out of him occasionally, because he is the one above all who provides no evidence to back up his assertions.
I’m a little more tolreant with BB, although he does the same, because occasionally he shows some affinity with some of the things that are important to me, like animal welfare.
I’ve arrived home to a limping and obviously injured pet cat this evening (think she’s been in a fight - so much for the Green non-violence principle - my cat don’t seem to get it), and I’m sure BB will understand that this might be my last post for the evening if a visit to the vet has to be the priority ahead of posting on frogblog.
Mouldwarp won’t. That’s the difference.
Off to check out the cat now, if she will let me pick her up and look at what’s happened to her leg.
March 14th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Lottery-winning beneficiary: I’m heading to space
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4439980a10.html
Just lets you see what it shows u!
March 14th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Gerrit: “One thing is for sure, as BJ points out, mankind finds it impossible to cooperate for a central goal.”
Completely wrong. Mankind cooperated just fine to shut down anthropogenic ozone depletion, and anthropogenic acid rain, and anthropogenic killer fogs, and even things like slavery. Every time it becomes obvious that the costs of doing nothing are greater than the costs of dealing with the problem, we do so, regardless of who ends up out of business.
The only thing holding back the world from doing something about anthropogenic climate change is the corruption in the US political system; as they happen to be the biggest driver of it, and it’s a big enough industry within the US to be able to totally control the political will there.
One might suggest similar things about subsidised agribusiness and the world’s food supply.
March 14th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Isn’t China now #1?
March 15th, 2008 at 12:01 am
tussock,
anthropogenic ozone depletion - tick
anthropogenic killer fogs - China and Christchurch, Temuka and Murupara must have been in the bathroom when mankind cooperated on that one.
anthropogenic acid rain - NASA satellite imaging has found the gun is still smoking. An entire arsenal of ICBMs in fact.
slavery - a little matter of a north American civil war but otherwise - tick.
anthropogenic killer frogs - I think I might need reading glasses.
March 15th, 2008 at 12:23 am
jh
How interesting his first thought isn’t to “redistribute the wealth”, eh.
March 15th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Applying the same principle to China the emerging wealthy will want Mercedes and super yachts. Capitalism provides the means but not (necessarily) the motivation? Although you could argue that we live in a society that normalises excessive consumption and that has an awful lot to do with industry and marketing (think the 4×4 that transforms itself adv). You could also argue that well funded political parties (not mentioning any names) are loath to even suggest we stop or react in any way to our culture of lavish use of energy.
I do think, however that we are programmed to overcome all limitations to some degree [man sitting on rocket, hair blowing in the wind blasts into space…roar from engine and thumping music]
March 15th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Tussock
There are several problems with both our statements here…. I am pointing out that we are bad at cooperating to PREVENT trouble. When we do and we succeed we get rubbished for succeeding. Y2k anyone? If I made that statement such as we don’t cooperate once the trouble hits, that’s a bit wrong and I should be more specific.
The examples you give are marginal except for Ozone and the Ozone depleting chemistry was not compellingly cheaper or better or more convenient than the alternative chemistries and the cost of the change was not ever going mean an alteration in the size of someone’s yacht… or the relative distribution of wealth of nations. The industries affected had no controlling stake in government at the time. Laws went into place and coercion was used… not cooperation.
My point is that cooperation when it means that someone who HAS stuff has to give some of it up doesn’t happen. When we are talking about nations it doesn’t happen in spades. All the social and moral intelligence of kids fighting on a playground. That’s your international political cooperation… right there.
You’re right about the US. I’m from there, and the political and social situations there sucketh big time. There’s a huge mal-distribution of wealth and rewards to people who produce nothing but toxic waste.
When that corrects the US will be a changed place. I think there are corrections beginning now… the financial system is getting hammered and the farmers are doing better finally. Secular bull in commodities is expected to continue a while and Farmers around the world will benefit.
Right now though, the US is divided against itself so bitterly and completely that it is hard to imagine it ever healing. A lot of that is religious.
Not surprising when half the country doesn’t believe the theory of evolution.
===================
To take this to a synopsis:
IF we are indeed changing the climate and capable of creating changes to it, THEN we have to organize ourselves to collectively control the changes being made.
The result is that SOMEONE has to decide, the change being present and the control being possible.
This provokes an incredibly bitter reaction from folks with Libertarian philosophies. Mouldwarp is perhaps the best example. Any alternative, including the deaths of millions of people, is better than actually taking control of our climate AND HAVING TO MAKE COLLECTIVE DECISIONS about it. Big Government.
Given the examples of the US and Soviet Union their argument isn’t without merit. We are NOT very good at that.
The problem is that we don’t appear to have a lot of choice.
respectfully
BJ
March 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Just to emphasize for the benefit of readers who may be misled by the remarks of Mr Costin above….
“The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.”
This was not a scientific conference. Reading the list provided shows the usual suspects not that many actual scientists and not much in the way of unusual or new theories. We’ve seen it all before and often enough here thanks to our open forum style, and it has all been answered (sometimes harshly, and I have done it myself on occasion because MY children are the ones losing their future to greed and complacency) .
As for the “Heartland Institute” my impression has been that it needs no great corporate sponsorship. They represent a substantial subset of Americans who have decided that ignorance is better than learning something that would make them question their god-given right to rape the planet and future generations. It is fair to say that they do actually represent that group of Americans.
It is also fair to say that I regard the Institute itself with the same disdain I give Rush Limbaugh. They succeed in what they attempt but it isn’t about science or truth. The publicity distracts the masses and prevents progress. Less divisive than Rush in some ways but very much a libertarian organization.
respectfully
BJ
March 15th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Gerrit,
The reason why many people refer to climate change rather than global warming is because a lot of aspects of the climate are changing (e.g. rainfall distribution), not just temperature. Climate change is a better term to describe what is happening, than the more specific term “global warming” (which is just one aspect of climate change).
In a number of your posts you refer to the -8 -> +2 K variability in gobal average temperatures for the last (approximately) million years. Current predictions are that the global average temperature will increase to the very top of this range (at least), and possibly significantly higher than the +2 K value. This is very likely attributable to human production of greenhouse gases, and will move the global average temperature outside the range seen in the last million years.
With regards human adaptibility to this amout of change, we know humans are quite capable of surviving through the range -8 -> +2 K, with much lower levels of technology than we currently have, otherwise we wouldn’t be here today. Personally, I think the human species will survive in warmer temperatures than present, but I don’t care to predict whether civilisation as we know it will survive (for a range of reasons, of which climate change is only one).
March 15th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Global warming is also misleading because it leads people to believe they can refute it with low points on a trend or individual places where the temperature has been cooler, or that the temperature could drop due to other factors but the climate system would still be warmer than trends suggest it ought to be.
BJ- If what you say is true, they don’t even deserve the word Libertarian. Libertarians believe in freedom and responsibility. A group of people who oppose taking any responsibility or preventative action for their damage for the environment are no better than thieves.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Ari,
- “not currently being at a record temperature level does not stop the trend from being alarming. A trend is related to the shape of the graph, not the height of a point on it”
Then the “trend” is zero net warming, and possibly slight cooling, since the Middle Ages, isn’t it.
Do you ever stop to ask why alarmists always (*always*) select a period of no more than 150 years when pointing to the climate history? It’s because it allows them to cherry-pick a start point in the depths of the Little Ice Age. There is absolutely no other reason.
Why don’t they pick, say, the Middle Ages when attempting to draw a climate trend to prove their point. It would have far more validity scientifically, because it would include the few hundred years *before* industrialisation - a control period, as it were - so we should be able to see clearly when this alarming CO2 forcing kicks in.
Of course they do no such thing, because there is no effect for them to point at. It just doesn’t exist.
Most of the the warming last century occurred *before* the major post-war industrialisation. Yet alarmist seek to include it in the overall amount of warming, when it clearly cannot be attributed to anthopogenic CO2.
- “the latest trends in temperature and CO2 levels do not fit the long-term trend in a way that has been plausibly explained by skeptics. We know about variance in the sun, axis wobbles, etc… but these still do not adequately explain our variation from the long-term trend that we do know for a fact is both natural and safe.”
This is just plain wrong.
It was the Hockeystick that started it all. It depicted a very stable climate over the last few hundred years, in a slight decline, followed by the dramatic and alarming upturn since around the time of early industrialisation. That clearly-unnatural climate behaviour demanded an unnatural cause, and CO2 was the obvious choice because the long-term climate history showed a strong and clear correlation between CO2 and temperature.
However, it is now clear that the Hockeystick is complete bunk, and that the natural climate, far from being stable, is forever jumping around. The pattern for the last one or two hundred years is *no different at all* from what has gone before. It is quite simply indistinguishable from earlier temperature activity.
Furthermore, we now know that the strong correlation between CO2 and temperature is the *reverse* of what was claimed earlier: in fact changes in temperature are what drove those associated changes in CO2 levels.
So when it comes to the science and the evidence, *everything* has changed in the last few years. There is *nothing* to explain and *no reason* to implicate what are in fact just trace amounts of CO2.
- “given that the IPCC operates on a consensus basis and includes almost everyone, I don’t see why people have reason to complain about any of its findings,”
But how would you *know* of any valid reasons for complaint? Do you ever look outside of realcensorship.com or the bbc website?
Consider just those alarming predictions that come out of the IPCC - “Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics. In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.
A good example of a principle clearly violated is “Make sure forecasts are independent of politics.” Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.
Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COM MENTARY/702895001/home.html
Note that this is not new information; but it is new to you I think.
toad,
Your attempt at sarcasm is basically a retread of something you said a while back.
I answered it then by saying that nobody disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas: The point is that we are talking about completely insignificant trace amounts which are totally lost in the vast natural greenhouse effect.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Mouldwarp, BB, BluePeter … are you anti all the rest of science? Are there other areas of human scientific knowledge where you believe that all the scientists, all the scientific organisations, and all the scientific press are wrong?
P.S. Mouldwarp, yes I get my climate change knowledge from other sources beside realclimate and the BBC. There is New Scientist, Nature, Scientific American, NASA, Energy Bulletin, Celsias, George Monbiot, Hot Topic to name but 8.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:49 am
>>are you anti all the rest of science
All?
>>all the scientists
All?
>>all the scientific organisations
All?
>>all the scientific press are wrong
All?
A list of interesting articles. From scientists not in the “all” camp…
nzclimatescience.net
March 16th, 2008 at 10:10 am
What’s the “r” value of CO2 as compared to a 2″ thick batt?
March 16th, 2008 at 11:21 am
Mouldwarp Says:
Then the “trend� is zero net warming, and possibly slight cooling, since the Middle Ages, isn’t it.
Do you ever stop to ask why alarmists always (*always*) select a period of no more than 150 years when pointing to the climate history? It’s because it allows them to cherry-pick a start point in the depths of the Little Ice Age. There is absolutely no other reason.
……………………………..
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
‘One hundred years is not enough’
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/20495/240
March 16th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Mouldwarp says that the hockey stick is broken>
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/14/01828/236
The conclusion is here: It doesn’t look so severe in the bottom graph ?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html
March 16th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Mouldwarp
You know we haven’t got records that go back to the middle ages and you also know that you DON’T know what the temperature during the middle ages actually was. Please don’t imply otherwise.
People go back 150 years cause that’s what we have fairly good measurements for, it is hardly a conspiracy of alarmists as you are implying.
Also, since the last 150 years provide more accurate information and less variability, the onus is on us to provide competing data and theory for the warming. Since you do not, I will.
http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/nature02995.pdf
http://cc.oulu.fi/%7Eusoskin/personal/Sola2-PRL_published.pdf
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/raimund/publications/Muscheler_et_al_Natur e2005.pdf
I note this from Solanki - “Although the
rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers
may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate
change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar
variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the
strong warming during the past three decades.”
That is the scientist who generated the data and has the strongest evidence of any difference.
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article3-fig2.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/forcing.html
It isn’t telling us that it explains everything, or most of the warming. It has never been denied that it has an effect. Certainly there are questions to which answers are lacking There always will be but that is the nature of science.
What gets done with it however, IS political as you have always maintained.
Political risk management is to risk management what military music is to music. The drumbeat is “get elected” not “do what’s best”. Economics trumps ecology in the current political milieu and has for all of human history.
However, this has always been about risk management, not certainty.
I redirect attention to this, which is quite clearly understandable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg#
BP
The scientists not in the “all” camp can be counted without taking off one’s shoes at this point. This is how we measure consensus in order to make decisions when we haven’t watched the video and accepted actual risk management principles.
respectfully
BJ
March 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
bj,
- “You know we haven’t got records that go back to the middle ages and you also know that you DON’T know what the temperature during the middle ages actually was. Please don’t imply otherwise.”
Is that what you said when the Hockeystick was first published? Did you dismiss it because the vast majority of it consisted of historical temperatures supposedly reconstructed from proxies (specifically, tree rings)?
No, you didn’t.
As long as it suited your purpose you went along with it. And, like the others, you fought tooth and nail as the Hockeystick was exposed as worthless. You are utterly shameless.
Are you now saying that all historical proxy reconstructions are invalid? That there is no way of knowing what the temperature was prior to the invention of the mercury thermometer? If so, when did this damascene conversion occur? I’m sure that’s not what you used to claim.
So now we only know the temperature back 150 years. Who knew?
Ari claimed in a previous posting on this thread that “CO2 levels do not fit the long-term trend.”
Are you going to tell him that, in fact, there is no such thing as a “long term trend,” because
we “DON’T know what the temperature during the middle ages actually was”?
Really, you alarmists should get your story straight between you. You’re all telling me different things.
Ari,
- “are you anti all the rest of science? Are there other areas of human scientific knowledge where you believe that all the scientists, all the scientific organisations, and all the scientific press are wrong?”
Can you tell me what in-depth auditing and analysis of the issue these organisations undertake before their governing committees issue these pronouncements?
Surely, unless such auditing is undertaken, their announcements of support are completely worthless?
Take the Hockeystick. It was accepted unconditionally around the world as hard evidence and yet, when an interested amateur finally started to look at what had been done and try to reproduce the findings, he found it to be a completely worthless piece of junk.
And look how the interested parties reacted to his revelations. First they tried to ignore him, and then they tried to rubbish him. Finally, without acknowledging that his devastating findings were completely correct, they quietly allowed the Hockeystick to disappear and said they have “moved on” from there.
So, no. Unless you can point me to the high-quality auditing undertaken by such organisations, I suggest that their statements of support are worthless (in fact, less than worthless. They point to serious problems in the scientific hierarchy which is largely funded from the public trough).
jh,
Please. Are you really claiming that the Hockeystick is valid?
Do you realise that, 9 times out of 10, *random data* fed through Mann’s home-made algorithm will return exactly the same hockeystick shape? Do you understand that the top statisticians in the US have identified exactly *why* this is?
Really, people like you express exasperation at me for disagreeing with a supposed “consensus,” and yet you clearly don’t know the first thing about the issue.
Interesting story about a fundamental flaw in the calculations so far used in those alarmist computer models:-
“Miklós Zágoni isn’t just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA’s Langley Research Center…How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution [which] ignored boundary conditions by assuming an “infinitely thickâ€? atmosphere…”
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally +Wrong/article10973.htm
After the Hockeystick debacle, who here is brave enough to say that the politicised and completely shoddy work coming out of NASA’s Goddard Institute doesn’t contain this fundamental mistake?
March 16th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
While the interchange beween BJ and Mouldwarp is interesting, it shows that as a species, humans cannot cooperate for any common good.
I order to cooperate one needs consensus. Something this debate lacks.
As I said in a previous comment
“Mankind cannot possibly ‘control’ climate change within the +-1 percent range we currently need to keep this planet in a state where no further climate change is possible.”
So never mind the reason why climate change is happening, even if mankind were not on the surface of this planet, the temperatuere variations are marked. Remember the +2 to -8 on the Vostok ice core graph?
Have a think about what frog said in an earlier comment
“The debate should therefore be not about what it is happening, as the science tells us what is happening, but what its effects will be, how fast they will occur, and what we can do to both mitigate it and adapt to it.”
Maybe samiula is right, we may have a temperature increase to +3 or +4.
What will mankind do to survive?
And what will the weather (climate) be at that temperature range?
One would imaging a lot of melted ice rasing ocean levels, but the higher temperatures would heat the oceans leading to evaporations and cloud formations. Resulting in much higher rainfall on the cooler land mass.
We may have a huge increase in tropical rainforests.
And will the oceans water levels rise that much with so much water in the atmosphere?
And with so much rain cloud around is the earth actually in danger of cooling again because of restricted sunlight reaching the oceans?
Surely a much more worthwhile subject to debate then this constant bikering about “look at this graph” or “you cant measure trendlines on a 150 year history” etc (yes I know I have done it too!).
I think we have established that climate will change (through manmade or through the earths normal cyclical variations — it really does not matter).
What really matters what we (mankind) as a species will do about it.
And to what degree we can make a difference.
I personally dont believe we as a species have the cooperative ability to make a difference, and as such will see a good portion of the current population perish.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Mouldwarp
You can’t argue with someone who doesn’t use the hockey stick… can you?
See… the difference between you and me is that I do look at the data and scratch my head once in a while and decide there’s a problem with this set of data and that some other data is more persuasive. The problem with your version of this is of course, that I pointed at and accepted those problems HERE in one of these interminable expressions of futility well over a year ago. I even THANKED you for pointing out the problems with the proxies… but the climate change we are creating doesn’t depend on the hockeystick. So your insults are, to those who have any knowledge of what has been posted here, just a lot of flatulence.
When you are presented with data that doesn’t match your theory what do YOU do? You ignore it. Actually, you’d have to HAVE a theory. You don’t have one though. In our conversations you’ve half-offered a half dozen different ones as each was ripped to shreds.
You don’t seem to realize that if you claim that some tree based proxies for that long handle are statistically invalid you actually haven’t proved what the temperature WAS, just that you don’t know. Which you don’t. You probably know less well than I do, as I have read through the different methods and studies and theories that provide the basis for these conclusions.
The problem is that the IPCC didn’t base its conclusions on the Hockey Stick. The conclusion of the IPCC in 1995 “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climateâ€? comes BEFORE Mann published. The theory rests on 20th century data. It predicts changes in temperature through the atmosphere column that show up in the satellite measurements. There’s still data going back before 150 years that isn’t confounded by the proxy issue .. bigger error bars but there’s still data.
CO2 and the Greenhouse are one reason we humans haven’t already frozen to death. The only question that needs to be answered is what the climate sensitivity is to the CO2 changes we are making. It has to be a damned sight less than the range of 2-4.5 degrees C for a doubling of the gas if you are to have an argument. Problem is that nobody can credibly show that that is likely no matter what starting assumptions they use. Physics demands that there be an effect.
Try to extricate yourself from your … mmm … attitude problem. You’re smarter than this.
BJ
March 17th, 2008 at 8:11 am
Interesting thread Mouldwarp and BJ. I’m learning a lot….
March 18th, 2008 at 7:18 am
The Sun did it? Don’t be so sure.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut 2004.pdf
The difficult issues with cloud coupled GCR flux are principally that there is no way to determine what correction (if any) is required on account of it. Clouds warm and cool both, depending on where they are and when… and there is no correct cyclical correlation with the planet’s encounters with the spiral arms of the galaxy.. Nor is there strong information relating to the solar flux. There ARE unknowns here, but the known explanation works fine thanks.
The sin, in all of this, is that we are resisting putting a price on the commons. That is all that really matters. In a religious worship of economic growth such as ours this is a very great sin, a mortal sin.
The market cannot do anything but destroy things that are free. It will use the “free” resource preferentially and inefficiently in place of anything that costs money. I do not care if the price is paid to governments, other people or used for toilet paper and shredded. If there is a cost and it is enforced on all equally, the market preserves…
If there isn’t, it destroys.
In the end this debate isn’t really about science at all.
A lot of people became wealthy using the current system. They like it a lot. They don’t want anything changed and a price on the commons WILL change things in ways that make a lot of folks who distrust big business happy.
So be it. I don’t care. Big Business, Big Brother, Big Populations, Big Government, Big Religion… I don’t care WHO makes a profit or a loss as long as there is a fair price on the use of the commons. That single measure puts the market in charge of enforcing sustainability. Its absence demands that the invisible hand must destroy every part of the commons it can reach.
People framing this as left vs right are just wrong.
BJ
March 18th, 2008 at 7:22 am
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2007-2&page=arti clesu6.html
March 18th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Gerrit - What Rubbish! you wrote:
“While the interchange beween BJ and Mouldwarp is interesting, it shows that as a species, humans cannot cooperate for any common good.
I order to cooperate one needs consensus. Something this debate lacks.”
I suppose the whole edifice of civilisation, which I believe is built finely on the balance between cooperation and competition, is actually the result of pure competitive forces? What a sad and tragic world view! I never sought consensus within my family about anything, but we cooperated just fine. I rarely seek consensus at work, yet we cooperate to produce just fine. My family, my work and my nation are all built on cooperation that is not based in consensus. Indeed, our parliamentary system is classed as ‘adversarial’, yet it is only the cooperation between MPs that gets the laws passed - without consensus. Children are cooperative and competitive by nature - for the common good. It is only nurture or lack of resources that breeds the competition that ultimately destroys the common good.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:43 am
frog, Gerrit: the only thing an interchange between Mouldwarp and anyone shows is that Mouldwarp cannot cooperate
March 18th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Eh? I find Mouldwarps posts very interesting.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:53 am
frog,
Interesting view point said I would say, with rose coloured glasses.
Fortunately I’m a realist and while my view might be construed as “sad and tragic” it is reality.
We build a front of consensus and cooperation yet it is based not on achieving anything but platitudes where the strong dictates to the weak.
The reality is neither party is happy. They may coexist, but happy about the outcome?
You tell your children they cannot eat a snack before dinner. While they might agree with the command not to (even see reason for it) that is not consensus or cooperation. It do as I say.
Consensus would be if you allowed them half the snack they desired.
Cooperation would be if both parties agreed to the compromise of consensus.
Take climate change.
The farmers in Greenland through this warming period are happy because they can now farm organic bovine instead of reindeer.
Now the islanders on an atoll in the South Pacific are unhappy as threatened higher ocean levels due to the warmer climate are going to flood them from their atoll.
Cooperation and consensus would say to move the islander to Greenland.
Would both parties be happy about that?
Passing laws in parliament is cooperative? Only to the point where it feeds the “whats in it for me” syndrome.
All of mankind is greedy. Be it the mega rich capitalist who has more money and power then they know what to do with, to the benificiary who sponges of fellow takepayers.
Greed rules mankind. No other species on this planet has that emotion to the level it has developed in mankind.
And because of this emotion all cooperation and consensus is only to the point of self fulfillment.
Greed based not purely on monatory value but peer recognition, power over others, etc.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
“tax payers”
not takepayers.
Hey we ned that neat feature on this blog where you can edit your own comments after posting!!
March 18th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Gerrit
Not all societies function the way the western capitalist competitive societies function. The ones that don’t have been swallowed up because the western model IS competitive, and if you try not to compete you lose. Sort of like being a pacifist when the other guy really really is going to beat the bejeezus out of you and take everything you own. You either abandon the pacifism or abandon everything you own.
Capitalism of the sort we have competes for energy and resources in a big way. It isn’t the ONLY way humans can organize themselves, it’s just the most effective way to compete that we’ve found.
BJ
March 18th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Totally agree BJ,
Just think that we have this romantic notion regarding cooperation and consensu when evn the most primitive tribes in the Amazon or New Guinea rainforest will defend what they consider is their property.
So not sure what model is best, but willing to look at something.
What other suggestion for organising society which supresses this greed emotion? I suggest that in those societies a very strong patriarctical or matriartical society exists.
Where “do as I say” is the dominant trait.
Perhaps GE modification has a use by replacing the greed gene with a more benevilant one.
Off cource in all people except me. Dont want to be compliant.
which is the whole problem. No one wants to be compliant.