Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On 10/25/2016 11:26 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 10/24/2016 8:05 PM, DougC wrote:
On 10/24/2016 4:19 PM, sms wrote:

There are no scientists that disagree with the premise that climate
change is being affected by man-made GHG emissions. Take of your Donald
Trump blinders.

Sure--in principal.

In the same way that a butterfly's wings *might* cause a hurricane.

Red herring. I don't think there are many serious climate scientists
nor much data linking butterflies with hurricanes. There's copious data
and solid science linking carbon dioxide emissions with rising
temperatures.

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

The second problem is that it is mainly presented as a social
engineering issue: since wealthy countries "caused" this issue, they
must become poor again to "solve" it... while much of the rest of the
world isn't restricted by it, or will continue to ignore it entirely.
Even if there was a problem, that isn't really a useful solution.
And it will not even succeed in its actual/hidden effort, since making
the rich people poor won't make the poor people rich.

Also: the greatest influence on Earth's climate is (scientifically)
estimated to be the /sun/, which is currently still beyond the scope of
human control {and that may be a good thing}.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution, my
insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!

--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!

And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann

On 10/26/2016 10:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!

And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann


Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the
first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point
where the only way of saving the world will be for
industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our
responsibility to bring this about?”

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of
State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions
of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty
[Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific
evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

At least Global Warming sounds positive. Before that, The
New Ice Age seemed just dreadful.


--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

AMuzi writes:

On 10/26/2016 10:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!

And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann


Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first
U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed
the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving
the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t
it our responsibility to bring this about?�

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard
Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State
Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented
even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced]
greenhouse effect.�

One doesn't expect much from politicians, but it is sad what has
happened to scientists. Being only human, perhaps it's true that they
have always honored the norms of science [1] more in the breach than the
observance, but there was a sense that, somehow, scientists had a duty
to truth.

RIP.

[1] Eg:
http://ethicsandscience.scientopia.o...ms-of-science/

--

On 10/26/2016 2:29 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 10/26/2016 10:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!

And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann


Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first
U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed
the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving
the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t
it our responsibility to bring this about?�

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard
Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State
Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented
even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced]
greenhouse effect.�

One doesn't expect much from politicians, but it is sad what has
happened to scientists. Being only human, perhaps it's true that they
have always honored the norms of science [1] more in the breach than the
observance, but there was a sense that, somehow, scientists had a duty
to truth.

RIP.

[1] Eg:
http://ethicsandscience.scientopia.o...ms-of-science/


Oh, that's merely science. pffft.
Global Climate Change is something entirely different:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4NtxXsjTi


Be sure to read down to Doctor Suckall's work. Apt, I say.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:10:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 10/26/2016 10:51 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!

And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann


Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the
first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point
where the only way of saving the world will be for
industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our
responsibility to bring this about?”

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of
State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions
of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty
[Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific
evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

At least Global Warming sounds positive. Before that, The
New Ice Age seemed just dreadful.

I've always thought it was strange that the base cause is never
mentioned. In 1950 the world population was estimated at 2.5 billion.
in 2000 it was 6.1 and the latest I find is 2015 - 7.3, which is dead
on track for a population of 10 billion in 2050. Or a gain of some
400% in a hundred years.

--
cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 2:47:12 AM UTC+1, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 11:10:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the
first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point
where the only way of saving the world will be for
industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our
responsibility to bring this about?�

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of
State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions
of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty
[Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific
evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.�

At least Global Warming sounds positive. Before that, The
New Ice Age seemed just dreadful.

I've always thought it was strange that the base cause is never
mentioned. In 1950 the world population was estimated at 2.5 billion.
in 2000 it was 6.1 and the latest I find is 2015 - 7.3, which is dead
on track for a population of 10 billion in 2050. Or a gain of some
400% in a hundred years.

--
cheers,

John B.

You can look it up for yourself in earlier threads before you arrived here, and since too, probably: I have several times on this group drawn the line connecting the Club of Rome (Maurice Strong among the executive directors) with its concern with ZPG (zero population growth, indeed advocacy of genocide to cut human population by some members), it's early seventies book saying that an environmental catastrophe even if invented (they first liked a new ice age; global warming came in only after the new ice age got too hot to handle...) was needed to scare people into behaving like the CoR (I'll leave the puns on the other fascist CoR to the Catholic renegades -- but it is no accident that the Club of Rome is headquartered in Italy) thinks they should behave. From there the link runs through UNEP (the UN Environmental Programme, chairman, you guessed it, Maurice Strong, who found the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change -- note that Climate Change is axiomatically assumed before a single study was done) and chartered it to find manmade climate change. Strong was (he died earlier this year) a Canadian oil billionaire...

Besides Strong, you might want to look into the membership of the Club of Rome and then follow through on individual members' views on the "permissible population" -- you will need a strong stomach (sorry! -- they're a murderous bunch).

***
All of this is so unnecessary. In the West and the erstwhile tiger economies of the Far East, all the important nations already have fecundity below replacement: anything below 2.1 children on average per every two of the population (not per couple, because not everyone marries) will not even maintain the population, never mind grow it. The only important exception is the United States, where fundamentalist Christians still have largish families, even if the elite already aren't replacing themselves.

Your forecasts are based on thinking that was already old in the early1960s when as a student I won a public debate against a famous statistician by describing the "population explosion" as "pap for the credulous and the corrupt" (we lived in a nation where the national policy on race, economics, military, everything, was based on a statistical report on which this guy had been a junior) and then asking the children of the elite in the audience for a show of hands of those who had more than one sibling -- there were almost none, and more than a third were only children.

See, every observant demographer in the world should know at least this much: with increasing wealth, birthrates decline. An additional factor is that socialist states like the EU and the richer Far Eastern democracies look after people from cradle to grave, so parents don't need many kids directly to ensure their comfort in their old age.

Far from a population explosion, the West is already almost past the so-called "low-low fertility rate", that is, breeding below the self-replacement rate, which can only result in shrinking nations. China, in part because of a stupid breeding restriction policy, will arrive there soon. The only available replacements are Muslims, who still breed like rabbits. Well, unless Europe and China can cut a deal with President Trump for him to export his Mexican illegals to them under the pretense that they're purebred Castilians... (That's a joke, by the way. Mexico doesn't actually have enough surplus population to make more than a small dent in Europe's problem, never mind the huge Chinese problem approaching like a runaway train.)

The overriding problem is that even Muslim fecundity is already on a downward curve. If you don't believe me, check Iranian birthrates since the ayatollahs took over; even in this most perfectly fundamentalist Islamic state, the link between increasing wealth and falling birthrates works equally under Shah and Mullah. Several studies have shown that Muslim birthrates in the plenty of the West is lower among the immigrant communities than back home where they came from...

Best guess currently is that the Muslim fecundity gap will disappear in less than half a century.

In my opinion, it is very unlikely that the world population will actually reach 10bn, and even if it did, it would stabilize there briefly and then start falling.

***
In any event, only the unthinking and the ill-informed believe that the world cannot feed a population twice what we have now -- easily. The problem is not now, and hasn't been for a century or so, food production; any temporary scarcity has been because of ideological warping of the system (Russian grain shortages) or polical mismanagement (most of Africa) or dickswinging by greenies (the pointless banning of DDT to prove their "power" by American environmentalists, which has caused a genocide of hundreds of million of the poorest people on earth). There is plenty of surplus food being thrown into the sea as I write to you; the problem is not producing it but transporting and distributing the surplus to the hungry. Look into how many tomatoes you can grow on a square meter of water pan, or into American wheat or South African maize (what you call corn) or Russian wheat when well managed, for that matter, and be amazed. During the apartheid era I saw maize being thrown into the sea by continuous convoy because the regimes of starving nations to the north didn't want to accept food from white hands...

Andre Jute
The things I've seen -- from Blade Runner

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 4:51:35 PM UTC+1, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!

And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 4:51:35 PM UTC+1, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 10/26/2016 3:32 AM, DougC wrote:

The first problem with "global warming" is that it has become scientific
dogma, and it is considered politically incorrect to disagree with it to
the extent that researchers who voice opposing concerns are penalized.

It's not only about "global warming!" They treat biologists the same
way if they disagree with evolution. They treat chemists the same way
if they still believe in phlogiston. And because of the persecution,
my insurance doesn't pay for a physician who still practices
bloodletting!

Scientists can be a cruel lot. _So_ intolerant!

And selfish:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the
data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something
wrong with it.

-- Michael Mann

Post-Normal Science sounds to me awfully like Marxist Science, otherwise known as Lysenkoism: If you differ from the WILL of Michael Mann, you WILL become the star of your own show trial.

Andre Jute
There's more science in Scientology than in Global Warming