Subscribe: Comments for RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/wp-commentsrss2.php?p=421
Preview: Comments for RealClimate

Comments for RealClimate



Climate science from climate scientists...



Last Build Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 07:33:22 +0000

 



Comment on The Bore Hole by Mr. Know It All

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 07:33:22 +0000

Hey! I hear the recent heat wave in Europe and the Pacific Northwest has been given the name Lucifer. Yup. So, I think RC should have a contest to come up with names for the even hotter heat waves that are sure to come in the near future. How about, "Hotter Than The Blue Blazers of Hell". Top that if you can! :) A new theory on the eclipse. This is real science here: http://pamelageller.com/2017/08/atlantic-great-american-solar-eclipse-racist.html/ :)



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Thomas

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 06:47:51 +0000

@Nigel et al, So what if instead of Governments being "judged" according to the false zero-value yardstick of National GDP Growth over their term in office, they were judged according to the National GDP per Ton of GHG Emissions? Or instead of Corn being priced according to a fake manipulated global market price that Farmers were instead paid on a reversed sliding scale based on the total amount of GHGs they consumed to plough, plant and harvest said corn, the amount of Nitrogenous Fertilizers they used to row said corn, and the amount of poisonous pesticides they used, and the amount of soil erosion they produced per Ton of Corn Harvested? Farmers using electric tractors would earn a higher income. Organic farmers would earn a higher income per ton of corn. And humble farmers in Mexico and Venezuela would be paid a factor well above all those "rich" Corn farmers in Iowa who Voted for Trump & McCain driving around in super expensive gas guzzling F150 Trucks and using their Cadillacs to go to church on Sundays or Walmart on Fridays versus the humble Mexican on his Mule riding off to his corn plot each day. It's all about Values and what's really Valuable and what isn't. It's also about fish swimming in a sea of constant disinformation as well. Like Adam Smith was not an "economist". He was a Political Philosopher who was good at writing a new kind of Narrative in the 18th Century. He was also clearly a Homosexual as well, but don't tell the Right Wing Born Again Prosperity Gospel Preachers or Rush Limbaugh or Paul Ryan that or they'll have a heart attack! :-)



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Thomas

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 05:57:12 +0000

395 nigelj, fwiw if you're confused about my position it's simply that "growth" as an economic parameter is not the big deal it;s made out to be. It's a dumbing down of the complexity to a point where it has for some time been utterly meaningless as a genuine meaningful VALUE - it's tossed around like confetti at a wedding .. the wind blows tomorrow and all the confetti is gone again as if it never was ... that's how useful "growth" is a measurement - therefore what it is measuring is also Moot and lost in the noise. So it's my view that discussions about +/- growth are a waste of time and effort. It's all hypothetical debates that cannot take anyone anywhere useful or meaningful as far as understanding really important core issues about economics today and capitalism in general. Even the term capitalism is a obnubilated term to the point barely a few at one time can discuss it and still be relevant to each other "semantics" wise. It's also been used so often as an emotive trigger word or a baseball bat used in pro or con "politics" that the term is essentially now worthless in intelligent conversation. imho. If you can take a moiment to check that Keen video via the BBC and check the end of that you'll note he speaks about the necessity for economics to become a genuine science where real data is measured and analysed scientifically, and peer reviewed papers are checks as thoroughly as climate science has been in recent times. That until that happens in a very real and valid sense the majority of economics is just blathering ideologues back and forth. I mentioned as much in the direction of Ray (and in other comments) but as usual my genuine queries/suggestions are never followed through nor acknowledged ... same goes for others as well of course. Much easier to be a KIA these days and never change a single belief along the way. (shrug) RE "But growth gives us an idea of roughly where the economy is going." Actually I'd put it thus: Growth gives a very ROUGH Idea of where the Money Economy has been. But as a yardstick for Real Value and an indicator of Intelligent Rational Healthy Economic Activity it's beyond useless. iow whether Growth is +/- is irrelevant to everything that's important to human beings living in a society that uses Money as Wealth.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Charles Hughes

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 05:56:57 +0000

Mr. Know It All says: 20 Aug 2017 at 3:27 AM 371 – Mal Adapted It’s amazing looking at the sheer volume of verbiage Thomas has typed. Perhaps the blog name should be changed. Perhaps “Thomas Spouts Off”, or “I am no Doubting Thomas”, or “I’m a Believer”, or “Thomas Impersonates Trump and Insults Everyone” or…….??? Let’s have a contest to come up with a new name for the blog. Congratulations KIA! That's the first thing you've said that I agree with.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Thomas

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 05:40:25 +0000

396 Mr. Know It All; lol, lost for words are you? ROFL Hehehehe, I said last week my 'job is done' ... so now I'm having 'fun.' Instead of you and that dill victor and the rest of the wallys who only flit in and out of here posting rubbish at the readers and the RC scientists here, you've been off doing other things in other places and are now only crying like a baby over me instead. I'd call that "a great success" ..... wouldn't anyone? :-)



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Nemesis

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 05:06:50 +0000

@Thomas, #388 Great comment, especially: " The Ultimate Long-Term Fix – Geoengineering by private firms to further alter the Climate. That is where we are headed." I've come to exactly the same conclusion some time ago. It's just the next "natural", intrinsic response of capitalism: More profit through more techno fixes. In terms of capitalism resp. profit, it makes perfect sense. Why not "save the planet", while making some bucks and controlling the atmosphere? Btw, there has always been an underlying conflict between rich and poor countries at all climate conferences. And this conflict will massively increase, when the rich countries start polluting/controlling/modifying/engineering/damaging the atmosphere even more, then they did in the past. The global political implications of SRM and shit are monstreous. The rich countries claim to be the global LEADER in climate intervention and they mean it.



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Nemesis

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 04:40:34 +0000

@All What's your guess, how far away are we from beautiful things like Solar Radiation Management? Not too far, imo. Hoka Hey



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by nigelj

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 04:03:40 +0000

Zebra @397 To at least have a discussion we have to assume people using terms are accepting of the normal dictionary definitions. Gdp growth, and inequality have pretty basic and clear definitions, easily googled or looked up on Britanicca or Wikipedia. Only fringe websites will expound different definitions. Of course sometimes people are ignorant of basic definitions and talk at cross purposes, and this can be pointed out. But I dont see much of this in comments posted. And best to stick with the standard definitions and not try to redefine things. Now we can certainly criticise how gdp growth is measured, thats another thing, and you have alluded to some very valid difficulties. The standards definition is just output of goods and services based on a sample of the typical ones that comprise economies. Its crude, but does give a very good indication of whether a nation is producing more goods or less. Its just a tool measuring a rate of change really. Standard gdp growth doesn't include quality of goods and services produced, happiness, quality of life, environmental externalities, invisibles, etc. There's a proposal to change gdp to include these or have an additional alternative measure. The USSR had good gdp growth but lousy quality etc. Inequality has standard definitions and measures, google gini coefficient. These are all actually pretty adequate. Rather than split hairs endlessly, or endlessly debating the veracity of data on inequality, like Thomas Pickettys work and whether its 100% accurate, it might be better to be results focussed?



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by Mr. Know It All

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 04:02:04 +0000

399 - BPL If you discover even 1 vote altered by Russians, please let Robert Mueller know about - and the NY Times also - they've had an ARMY of Democrats looking for that 1 vote for many months. I'll never admit it, but Vladimir Putin sent me 1 ounce of gold so I'd vote for T. ;) Thomas and the rest of you NO GROWTHERS, the EU is so afraid of population decline that they've invited millions of refugees to the EU. So far I hear it's been a real "blast". https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/07/daily-chart-6 What could possibly go wrong?



Comment on Unforced Variations: August 2017 by nigelj

Mon, 21 Aug 2017 00:48:00 +0000

Killian @394 "One metric matters: Sustainable or not. Period. End of discussion. If it isn’t sustainable, why are you talking about it? Nothing you are discussing is sustainable. Bad enough, but Kevin asked you about the transition, but you all responded with your visions of the future. Yes sustainability is the key thing here. I'm strongly supportive of that idea. Whatever economic system we have has to do this, whatever "ism" we call it. We only have one planet and we need to look after it, because moving planets will be very difficult! But you haven't explained how we get from the current system, to a more sustainable system. I did. You put more constraints and rules around capitalism to force behaviour to become more sustainable. You do not read what people say,even when its repeated. Remember some countries already have both capitalism and sustainable fisheries for example, with quota management.They are NOT mutually exclusive ideas. "There is one, and only one, definition of capitalism: Private ownership of capital. " This is roughly the dictionary definition. I have already said this is adequate. "In a nutshell, capitalism creates the poor. " Not really. There were plenty of poor in egalitarian hunter gatherer societies, communist societies,etc. These societies shared better, but there was still dire poverty. However I have already said capitalism can lead to inequality and poverty as a side effect. Please read what people say. But capitalism also creates wealth overall better than any other system that has been tried, through competition and innovation. The problems can be fixed with tax payer assistance for poor people, as was done better in the 1960s. Ultimately this amounts to the same result as a so called "sharing society" or community based society anyway. You don't seem to be able to see this. "Capitalism cannot be made sustainable because it is not driven by “economic forces” or any other drivel, but by selfishness, greed, megalomania, sadism, etc." No thats only half true. Capitalism is driven by self interest and a desire to get ahead without being told exactly how to do this. This is different to greed. Its the insatiably greedy who give it a bad name. The worst excesses of capitalism can be tamed with better rules, if theres a political will. This will eventually push capitalism in a better direction, without agonising over trying to define some ideal zero growth regenerative agriculture society. This sort of society will probably be the ultimate outcome anyway. But coming up with a blue print is hard, and you havent reconciled regenerative agriculture with how much technology you want, and how an alternatve to capitalism would actually be innovative enough to provide that technology. However I want to be clear, I dont oppose things like organic farming and this may well be the way to go. I can sort of visualise a regenerative farming society combined with a free market capitalist ethic and smart technology that could be sustainable if cleverly done. Whether it can be done on global scale I don't know. But its better than everyone being dirt poor. But if we push the capitalist system gradually towards more "sustainability" just with better environmental rules, things will work out I think. We will get to some sort of syustainable society that is less wasteful without being too prmitive. If you have a completely different alternative economic structure to capitalism, what is it? It needs to be something economic, not simply "regenerative agriculture". And HOW do we get from point a to point b, in a practical sense? How do you convince the public to change their ways, and would you start a new political party? If as you say capitalism is[...]