How or Why we will reverse global warming

[SysError]

\

It is hypocritical of people without much scientific background to berate others for not knowing enough science.

really?


Does that apply to Econ?

 

I think so.

Well I see.  I am a little surprised and saddened to see that you have decided to disqualify yourself from contributing on these topic points in the future.      

I for one shall miss you.   

 

[Nathan60]

I hear that global warming is causing a spike in aquatic std's poor Krabby is rumored to be among the most chronic and oft effected as warmer waters have allowed him to travel further up the coast and he now spends his summers in in  Atlantic City



Krabby has Krabs
Krabby has krabs
Krabby no krab
poor krabby

[NatCigg]

Good science huh. That reminds me of Koch's postulates.  How does good science apply? Hell if I know, im no scientist.  I keep the wife happy and the boss happier. 

[Brooke]

Well I see.  I am a little surprised and saddened to see that you have decided to disqualify yourself from contributing on these topic points in the future.      

I for one shall miss you.   

 

Well, you might dismiss the likes of Mauldin, Tepper, Rickards, Schiff, and Pento; but I must object if you consider economics not to be a science, if you completely discount the study of markets and history of civilizations as having no interaction with economics, and if you also dismiss Hayek, Keynes, Krugman, Sowell, Hazlitt, Furguson, Reinhart, Rogoff, Acemoglu, Robinson, Diamond, Levitt, Gibbon, Cyril Robinson, and Lewis. 

[PJ_Godzilla]

The problem is that their beliefs seem to be predicated on the idea that solar output is the only thing that matters. We know that's straight out roadkill.

We're they to simply say that Solar output is the primary problem, or that atmospheric chemistry is of lesser importance, sure. That's their opinion, arrived at after examination of data, awaiting validation like every other theory.

The problem is that they are saying that everything but their theory is UNimportant. Good scientists don't do that. They don't find one new piece of evidence, form a theory on it, and junk everything else. Climate science is the only field where such incompetents are not only widely tolerated, but celebrated as the voices crying truth in the wilderness by such a large base of people.

I think I could apply your comment to the voices at IPCC -and this despite the failure of their models to correlate. As for irradiance advocates, I think you overstate their position. The wholly logical hypothesis of irradiance impact on climate is that variability in the earth's primary heat source is the primary high frequency driver of climate change.

As for your argument regarding nestle, I well remember standing atop Skoga Foss is Iceland, listening to our guide. She was telling us about an evil company that wanted to dam the river, of which the Foss was a part. The brave local environmentalists were able to chase those ruthless profiteers away. It was at that point that I looked around from my vantage point. I asked her, gesturing at the downstream portion of the river, "but, if you don't dam the river, does not all this glacial water simply dump into the ocean, to be wasted for everyone?"

Crickets... The only point here: don't let fear that someone might make a little money ruin the possibility of a good solution for all. After all, Iceland has lots of Foss, lots of glacial water. Why not charge a profitable venture a decent fee for the use of one?

[-ammo-]

Well, you might dismiss the likes of Mauldin, Tepper, Rickards, Schiff, and Pento; but I must object if you consider economics not to be a science, if you completely discount the study of markets and history of civilizations as having no interaction with economics, and if you also dismiss Hayek, Keynes, Krugman, Sowell, Hazlitt, Furguson, Reinhart, Rogoff, Acemoglu, Robinson, Diamond, Levitt, Gibbon, Cyril Robinson, and Lewis. 

Thomas Sowell and CS Lewis produce good stuff.  I love reading/listening to their productions

[earl1937]

I accept they're ridiculous options. But I also accept that, at some point in time, they will not be options, but necessary and desperate acts to save a crumbling way of life.

As I told Earl, it sucks. But, as contributors to the problem, we also have a responsibility to take action. If that action is, for you, simply recycling, then that's your call. I can't force you to change your mind. If it's donating to scientific research, or environmental groups, again that's your call.

However, you must accept some level of responsibility and accountability, and deal with it on your death bed, or with your god.

If I am going to die from something I can't see coming and I really have to go, OK! Just give me a "Wing" of B-17's and let me hit Syria and maybe do the world a little good before I have to report to that big hangar in the sky!

[NatCigg]

I think I could apply your comment to the voices at IPCC -and this despite the failure of their models to correlate. As for irradiance advocates, I think you overstate their position. The wholly logical hypothesis of irradiance impact on climate is that variability in the earth's primary heat source is the primary high frequency driver of climate change.

As for your argument regarding nestle, I well remember standing atop Skoga Foss is Iceland, listening to our guide. She was telling us about an evil company that wanted to dam the river, of which the Foss was a part. The brave local environmentalists were able to chase those ruthless profiteers away. It was at that point that I looked around from my vantage point. I asked her, gesturing at the downstream portion of the river, "but, if you don't dam the river, does not all this glacial water simply dump into the ocean, to be wasted for everyone?"

Crickets... The only point here: don't let fear that someone might make a little money ruin the possibility of a good solution for all. After all, Iceland has lots of Foss, lots of glacial water. Why not charge a profitable venture a decent fee for the use of one?

That's a good idea. You know scientists only speak their mind, and wear plastic coats. 

[Widewing]

All previous climate model software will require a rewrite... The global warming apple cart has been overturned by a new discovery, it seems....

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/30/massive_global_cooling_factor_discovered_ahead_of_paris_climate_talks/

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b02388

[mthrockmor]

Having spent 20 plus in government "man-made global warming" is a complete, political fraud designed to consolidate power and wealth. Period!

Boo

[-ammo-]

Having spent 20 plus in government "man-made global warming" is a complete, political fraud designed to consolidate power and wealth. Period!

Boo

While 20 years working for the gubment does not make anyone an expert (I have 28 years and counting), I agree its a lie.  Anyone with a discerning mind can take it all in and know the the "degrowther movement" is a fallacy designed to progress a lelftist agenda based on fear.  Typical

[Mar]

Yup. It's amazing what scientists will say when they see green eh? And I'll bet there are even more 'incentives' that go with it.

[Busher]

Ian Rutherford Plimer  is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopaedia of Geology.

Born
12 February 1946 (age 68)
 
Residence
Australia 
 
Nationality
Australian
 
Fields
Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering
 
Institutions
University of New England, University of Newcastle, University of Melbourne, University of Adelaide
 
Alma mater
University of New South Wales, Macquarie University
 
Thesis
The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia  (1976) 
 
Notable Awards
Eureka Prize (1995,2002), Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004) 
 
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From? 
 
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The recent volcanic eruption in Iceland. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE  EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
 
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that  vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
 
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50p light bulbs with £5 light bulbs .....  well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
 
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
 
I don't really want  to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
 
Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it!!!!
 
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
 
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years.  And it happens every year.
 
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
 
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why? It’s because the  planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
 
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.  It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
 

[NatCigg]

The oxygen byproduct come from a photon of light energy splitting a h2o molecule to use the hydrogen ion as the energy in the beginning reaction of photosynthesis I believe is is in photo system 1 by description.

edit: it is photo system 2. 

[SysError]

... but I must object if you consider economics not to be a science,...

I will say right up front that when I saw your comment I was a little taken back.  I did not say that and if you were to say that there was an inference to such a sentiment, I would say that it would be weak one. 

Gibbon?  Do you mean Edward Gibbon author of Decline and Fall?  I would be dumb struck if you knew what my thoughts on his work are.

Again, I am not sure why you would think that I would “dismiss …, Keynes, Krugman…”

Sowell?  I do not think that I have ever been persuaded by even one of his arguments.  Sowell is a good example of how extreme ideologues function, psychologists call it projection.  In a nut shell they attribute their own screw ups to others.  His appeal is easy to see: He is easy to read and, he comes up with up one-liners that either blame others or demand more freedom from people who are somehow holding him, or other true lovers of freedom, back.

Kevin Drum recently came up with a definition of hardcore libertarianism that while unflattering is really very insightful of these mind sets:

   Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy. It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks. They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence.

   Most of them are wrong, of course. In a truly libertarian culture, nearly all of them would be squashed like ants—mostly by the same people who are squashing them now. But the fantasy lives on regardless.

   Few women share this fantasy. I don't know why, and I don't really want to play amateur sociologist and guess. Perhaps it's something as simple as the plain observation that in the more libertarian past, women were subjugated to men almost completely. Why would that seem like an appealing fantasy?


There are a number of people here, right now, that you could apply the above to and I would not be surprised if a fair number of that group, (perhaps all?), would be actually flattered to have at least a part of the first section of the definition applied to themselves!

(BTW:  Has there ever really been a serious discussion of why there are so few women in the game?  Do not say that there aren’t many women gamers: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/22/adult-women-gamers-outnumber-teenage-boys/ .  Are a fair number of them playing Candy Crush?  Maybe.  My wife, who is probably smarter than any random combination of several of us put together, plays Candy Crush.  But one point is that the few women that do log on get it faster, thicker and longer than any another newbie that happens to meander along.  Maybe I am making a connection that is either too weak or not there.  Just a thought for later).

Let me again state in part what I said not too long ago:
 
The reason why people don’t need to pay any attention to the likes of Hazlitt, Sowell, Von Mises, et al, is that because after spending about 35+ years of implementing their ideas on deregulation, government defunding, free markets, principles of self-interest, etc. etc., they brought the world to the very brink of an utter total irreversible financial ruin.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,374473.msg4990892.html#msg4990892

So you can look at what happened in 2008 and make an informed decision about what might work and what probably will not work in the 21st century.
 
You can think about the standards and regulations that worked, and those that perhaps did not.  Or you can also blame the whole thing on a Fannie and Freddie Mac fantasy.  There are lots of people making a lot of money selling that fantasy. 

Do I believe in competition? YES.

Do I believe that governments need to set standards that allow the best ideas to rise to the top?  YES.

Do I believe that people should be awarded for success? YES.

And very importantly, do I believe that it matters how people achieved their success?  YES


Mauldin, Tepper, Rickards, Schiff, and Pento?

I was a little surprised that you didn’t list Carl Icahn. 

I do not follow these types of people. Icahn is more than enough for me.  I know that I live in a culture where the intensity of leadership worship, in the private sector at least, is often awarded based on the number of zeros after one’s name.
 
Engorging yourself at the expense of others does not count.  Gluttony used to be a sin.

Wall Street used to be a place where, however imperfect, investors got rewarded for investing in the country’s future.  It is now nothing more than a rigged game of financial musical chairs.  Or market timing as “those in the know” would say.  Trying to figure out if a P/E is realistic has been replaced by trying to figure out how rip “management” fees out of 401(k) plans.  (Possibly to the tune of $17B per year now!). 

My current recent favorite Wall Street scam:
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/02/298370558/traders-defend-high-speed-systems-against-charges-of-rigging


BTW: my brother-law is a follower of the Austria School.  He is not a hardcore libertarian though.  He is one of the kindest human beings I know, they are good people.


As I was googling around to check your investment guys out (I do not want to label someone with something they are not), by random chance I came across this gem on Peter Schiff:

http://www.etvita.com/2013/04/peter-schiff-is-wrong-about-everything.html

I am sure that there is rebuttal somewhere out there…..