Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thank God, it's irreversible.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thank God, it's irreversible.

    Good news everyone, there's nothing realistic we can do to stop it.

    http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/10/glo...r-were-doomed/

  • #2
    Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

    Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
    Good news everyone, there's nothing realistic we can do to stop it.

    http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/10/glo...r-were-doomed/
    I guess it's good to know there are fanatics on the GW side as well..."McPherson, however, did say that his apocalyptic view of global warming was a minority view, saying there are maybe 10 others in the scientific community that thought along the same lines as himself."

    I suppose I'm relieved to know there are only about 10 scientists that think the sky is falling. I really dislike these apocalyptic proselytizers. The Jonestown approach never turns out well for anyone.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

      Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
      Good news everyone, there's nothing realistic we can do to stop it.

      http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/10/glo...r-were-doomed/
      So, McPherson’s pronouncement that it’s irreversible is a real load off. We can stop having the debate about whether or not to crush human economic progress with global regulatory efforts to massively reduce everyone’s standard of living via carbon emission controls (except for the super-wealthy and politically-well connected, of course).
      But not so fast. McPherson has come up with a novel twist on this one. Even though humanity is totally doomed, that doesn’t mean we can now just drop the issue and get back to increasing our standards of living as fast as possible in our last remaining years. Nope, we apparently have a responsibility to destroy ourselves so that other animals can have the planet instead. The method of suicide? We must “terminate industrial civilization.”
      Since McPherson considers himself qualified to speak on these matters, I’m going to assume that he is in fact aware that terminating industrial civilization would result in the near-immediate starvation of a large portion of the human race. This no doubt fits into his plan to destroy humanity for the sake of amoebas and elk, but he then implies that he doesn’t understand what the end of industrial civilization means when he declares that, being doomed, our only choice is is to “enjoy and create moments of joy while we are here.”

      So which is it? Should we terminate industrial civilization or “create moments of joy,” because those two propositions are mutually exclusive for the vast majority of humans.


      Strange...the McPherson guy seems to think what he says is 1) valid, and that 2) people will believe him, and 3) act on what he said accordingly. Can we terminate his computer link, and maybe his job as the first step?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

        Originally posted by Forrest View Post
        Strange...the McPherson guy seems to think what he says is 1) valid, and that 2) people will believe him, and 3) act on what he said accordingly. Can we terminate his computer link, and maybe his job as the first step?
        He's retired so the job is gone. He's a blogger and my favorite description from his Wiki page.."McPherson has gained a small following in the deep ecology/"doomer" fringe of the hard green movement."

        Maybe someone here should send him an iTulip link to "Are you a Doomer?".

        BTW, his training is from Texas Tech in "Range Science" and he's just passing along information to the public. I don't suppose he's going direct because he can't publish his bat $#it crazy ideas in a respectable journal.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

          The headlines for the UN Climate Change report are not significantly much better. Replace "is irreversible" with "will soon be irreversible" and you've got the same message.

          Since a zero-carbon economy is almost a political and technological impossibility (because people do not like starvation), the best prescription seems to be the same--adapt to our environment just as we and our ancestors always have.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

            Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
            The headlines for the UN Climate Change report are not significantly much better. Replace "is irreversible" with "will soon be irreversible" and you've got the same message.

            Since a zero-carbon economy is almost a political and technological impossibility (because people do not like starvation), the best prescription seems to be the same--adapt to our environment just as we and our ancestors always have.
            No such claim exists in this report and there is no correlation between the person you quoted earlier and AR5 scientists. Your zero carbon red herring is also nothing any thinking person is recommending. Your prescription that we adapt is a well understood logical fallacy called survivor's bias. It often aims us in exactly the wrong direction.

            The report is worth reading and can be found here:
            http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...NGERREPORT.pdf

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

              Originally posted by santafe2 View Post
              No such claim exists in this report and there is no correlation between the person you quoted earlier and AR5 scientists. Your zero carbon red herring is also nothing any thinking person is recommending. Your prescription that we adapt is a well understood logical fallacy called survivor's bias. It often aims us in exactly the wrong direction.

              The report is worth reading and can be found here:
              http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report...NGERREPORT.pdf
              Have you read the report? All of it? I have not and never will, though I might see snippets of the conclusion if the mood strikes me. That puts me more informed than probably about 99.5% of the people of this planet regarding the actual contents of this report. The public doesn't have the time or energy or inclination to read this expensive document.

              Please notice that I described the headlines of the report, not the content, and that I did so accurately.

              Also, my prescription (and I know you meant to say that the rationale for my prescription) is not a logical fallacy. My prescription is the only politically practicable solution--even socialist progressives like to eat, and that's why no matter how far the "green agenda" travels, its extremes will always be rolled back to reality. There is very little likelihood of a zero-carbon global economy by 2100 or any other timeframe, and there are far more effective and cheaper solutions for virtually all environmental challenges which face us at present and will face us in the future.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

                All we've gotten from the global warming control freak, tax radicals is falsified data and record cold. There has been no warming for well over a decade.

                If these idiots really believed we had a problem they would be marching for massive new nuclear energy plants, and teleconfering for all knowledge work. They would ditch their SUVs for bikes and stop flying all over the world for "the end of the world" conferences.

                It's all an academic grant scam as they don't have the mental capacity to do real research of value in their fields.

                The American public is wise to this charade as all public opinion has shifted massively away from this charade.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

                  Originally posted by vt View Post
                  All we've gotten from the global warming control freak, tax radicals is falsified data and record cold. There has been no warming for well over a decade.

                  If these idiots really believed we had a problem they would be marching for massive new nuclear energy plants, and teleconfering for all knowledge work. They would ditch their SUVs for bikes and stop flying all over the world for "the end of the world" conferences.

                  It's all an academic grant scam as they don't have the mental capacity to do real research of value in their fields.

                  The American public is wise to this charade as all public opinion has shifted massively away from this charade.

                  Yeah, I HATE how these nerdy scientists with their fancy degrees and academic papers think they know so much more about the way things work; always telling us good common sense folks that our intuition, life experience and feelings aren't the best way to understand how the world works.

                  All these science clowns with their laboratories and their experiments and data, always telling us to change the way we do things. Scientists sit around in their labs and offices and make these recommendations, but they don’t know anything (!!!!!!) about where we live. They like to call us normal peoplestupid, but they're the ones who lack mental capacity. Why don't they research something important that matters to the real people?

                  Because they CAN'T, because they're the real ignorant ones who refuse to look past their longitudinal studies and just open a window and look up???!!!??!!!!???!!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

                    Woody,

                    You must be only reading your team's play list:

                    http://www.petitionproject.org/

                    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...ncing-evidence

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

                    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...consensus-not/

                    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ming-data.html

                    http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100...78462813553136

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy

                    http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_gl...fic_fraud.html


                    One needs to look at all of the data. I'm all for conservation. I'm all for more nuclear and solar; but I'm not for questionable new taxes or yet more unneeded control.

                    Of course the leading scientists of the day once thought the world was flat

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

                      Originally posted by vt View Post
                      Woody,

                      You must be only reading your team's play list:

                      http://www.petitionproject.org/

                      http://ossfoundation.us/projects/env...ncing-evidence

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

                      http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...consensus-not/

                      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ming-data.html

                      http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100...78462813553136

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...il_controversy

                      http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_gl...fic_fraud.html


                      One needs to look at all of the data. I'm all for conservation. I'm all for more nuclear and solar; but I'm not for questionable new taxes or yet more unneeded control.

                      Of course the leading scientists of the day once thought the world was flat
                      Hey, nice list! I must say I do understand your perspective a bit more now that you've let us know your knowledge of climate science comes from Natural News and Forbes. But where are the English tabloids like The Sun and The Mirror that you're so fond of citing science articles from? Me, I admit never getting much past page 3 on those.

                      It's so appropriate that you mention Flat Earthers. Much like the denialists of today, it was the stubbornly ignorant dogmatic types among the ancients who saw the world as a flat disk. The proto-scientists like Pythagoras in the 6th century BCE and Parmenides in the 5th did the early theorizing about the world as a sphere. Eratosthenes did the math a while later, calculating the Earth's circumference.



                      His numbers were slightly off, but since he had only his brain, a water well and a sundial to work with, I'd say he did a hell of a job, wouldn't you? And when he was done with that he invented geography.

                      Speaking of teams, you never did say which independent/third party candidate you supported in the election. So which VA independent did you support with your vote? You had three independent options to choose from: Jeffrey Carson (Libertarian), Gerard Blais (Green) or Gwendolyn Beck (Independent), and that was just for Congress. Plenty of qualified third party candidates is your neck of the woods, lucky dog you.

                      So which was it? Which one did you pick to kick off the new independent majority you always talk about?
                      Last edited by Woodsman; 11-06-14, 07:13 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

                        Ever the Strawsman, you write well and look real nice like in your air of mocking authority. I am certain a man so knowledgeable would have heard of Lysenkoism.

                        While not as overt as it was in the heydays of the USSR, there is little doubt about the self-licking ice cream cone nature of climate research in this and other countries.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

                          Originally posted by Ghent12 View Post
                          Ever the Strawsman, you write well and look real nice like in your air of mocking authority. I am certain a man so knowledgeable would have heard of Lysenkoism.

                          While not as overt as it was in the heydays of the USSR, there is little doubt about the self-licking ice cream cone nature of climate research in this and other countries.

                          Lysenkoism? Is that like self-licking? I thought that's what y'all were doing in this thread already?
                          Last edited by Woodsman; 11-07-14, 08:58 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

                            Perhaps one believes we should accept so called scientific journals that publish articles from "scientists" who have now been exposed for falsifying their research and using flawed date. At least the true facts are coming from publications that the fanatics disparage.

                            There has been an admission the data is wrong and in fact we have not been warming for 18 years. Now we find that 31,000 scientists do not believe that global warning is a major problem.

                            Public opinion has turned decisively against the global warming tax and control scam.

                            Alas, when the left loses the debate they double down with ridicule and the sky is falling scare tactics.


                            Until the GW crowd supports massive expansion of nuclear power and extensive telecommuting they lose all credibility.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Thank God, it's irreversible.

                              Originally posted by vt View Post
                              Now we find that 31,000 scientists do not believe that global warning is a major problem.
                              I’d take that with a couple of grains of salt.

                              Here’s the link for the Global Warming Petition Project
                              http://www.petitionproject.org/
                              The website says that 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs. According to the website, 39 of the signers have training in climatology, and 112 have training in atmospheric science.

                              The project's definition of "scientists" includes a wide variety of specialties:
                              1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences = 3,805
                              2. Computer and mathematical sciences = 935
                              3. Physics and aerospace sciences = 5,812
                              4. Chemistry = 4,822
                              5. Biology and agriculture = 2,965
                              6. Medicine = 3,046
                              7. Engineering and general science = 10,102

                              The Wikpedia page on the Petition Project describes two interesting analyses, saying:
                              ***** In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science....Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

                              ***** Former New Scientist correspondent Peter Hadfield says scientists are not experts on every topic... Rather, they must specialize:
                              "In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap."
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

                              A guest post by Brian Angliss on skepticalscience.com looks at the total number of scientists who've graduated in the United States, and estimates the signers of the petition "represent a small fraction (~0.3%) of all science graduates, even when we use the OISM’s own definition of a scientist." He describes a 2009 survey of earth scientists: when they were asked "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" they were far more likely to say yes then the general public. His essay includes many other criticisms of the Petition Project.
                              http://www.skepticalscience.com/scru...n-Project.html
                              If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X