Risk Management: WWIII vs Climate Change

On Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:39:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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!

I did ask my cardiologist about blood letting and she said that for
certain heart conditions it might be termed a valid treatment.
However, she added, it was no longer accepted by patients :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

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 Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:22:47 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I did ask my cardiologist about blood letting and she said that for
certain heart conditions it might be termed a valid treatment.
However, she added, it was no longer accepted by patients :-)

There is a disease -- I've forgotten the name -- in which the patient
absorbs too much iron, and the cure is regular bloodletting. I've
often wondered whether the disease renders the blood unfit for
transfusion. It would be cool if all the patient needed was exemption
from the mandatory recovery period between donations, but odds are
he's on enough drugs to render the question moot.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 4:31:32 PM UTC+1, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 5:43:02 PM UTC-4, Andre Jute wrote:
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

If you believe the scientists, then ask your politician or preacher to tell you. He will tell you what you want to hear.

I think, my leetle banana, that you mean, "If you don't believe the scientists, then ask..."

But you're wrong about that too. I have no problem believing scientists who follow proper procedure and produce falsifiable, repeatable evidence by honest means. It's the cowboys who cook the data to "prove" a predetermined viewpoint that I have delighted at spitting on ever since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national paper. Too many of that scum, and their slimy hangers-on, infest global warming studies for us to invest a dime in their prognostications, never mind trillions. They should all be sued for unprofessional conduct amounting to fraud and jailed.

Your reference to religion is revealing. I don't know what you do for a living, what training you had, but it is clear to many people, and has been for a long time, that the belief in global warming is a religious substitute for weak minds, including some (Scharfie is an example) whose training should have immunized them against dumb claims that depend for persuasion on "consensus" rather than falsifiable, repeatable proof -- and the ability to predict what happens next, which the global warmies fail miserably to do. Global warming isn't science, sonny, it is demagoguery of a particularly malicious type.

Andre Jute
I often think that it is a failure of state and community care for the handicapped that anyone who believes in global warming is permitted to cross the street without adult supervision

Joy Beeson writes:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 08:22:47 +0700, John B.
wrote:

I did ask my cardiologist about blood letting and she said that for
certain heart conditions it might be termed a valid treatment.
However, she added, it was no longer accepted by patients :-)

There is a disease -- I've forgotten the name -- in which the patient
absorbs too much iron, and the cure is regular bloodletting. I've
often wondered whether the disease renders the blood unfit for
transfusion. It would be cool if all the patient needed was exemption
from the mandatory recovery period between donations, but odds are
he's on enough drugs to render the question moot.

Hemochromatosis.

https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-inf...ges/facts.aspx

Doesn't say whether the blood is usable for transfusion (or anything else).

--

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

DougC considered Wed, 26 Oct 2016 02:32:56
-0500 the perfect time to write:

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.

Strange how that happens with established facts like the (nearly)
spherical earth!
Maybe you're still holding out against that as well.
And hold on to the ground, or you may drift away - after all, how sure
can you be about gravity?

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.

China is investing more in renewables than the rest of the world put
together. It doesn't seem to be holding them back much, and of
course, there's no reason the (already) developed world can't do the
same - except the pressure placed on governments by the fossil fuel
industry.

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.

If the already rich would only invest in the renewables, they could be
getting even richer, as they would lead the world in those
technologies and be able to charge others for that expertise.

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}.

The problem is how much of the solar energy that hits the earth's
atmosphere is retained. It's a scientific fact that different mixes
of gases change that rate, and CO2 emissions have been responsible for
a huge increase in the energy retained in the atmosphere. Some of
that gets passed on to the oceans (although so does the CO2, which
causes acidification of seawater and kills off a lot of sea life) but
despite that, average global temperatures are increasing. This is a
measure of the total energy in the climate, so extremes of high winds,
high temperatures, and (because of the way in which currents in both
air and sea get changed) some places will actually get colder.

As a very simplistic measure, just look at the amount of ice which
we've been losing over the last few decades, both glacial ice and
polar ice-caps. It's hard to explain how that could be happening
unless it is genuinely getting warmer, and we know that the increase
tracks the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere quite closely.

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

We go through periods of increased sunspot activity on a fairly
regular basis. We don't have any record of this causing anything like
the amount of warming we are currently seeing during any former period
of high sunspot activity, despite looking extremely hard for it.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2016 20:07:46 +0100, Phil Lee
wrote:

Strange how that happens with established facts like the (nearly)
spherical earth!

That gets re-measured all the time. The way science works is that
*everything* gets questioned -- when a topic is placed off limits for
investigation, that isn't science.

The latest buzz in biology is that certain acquired characteristics
*can* be inherited. Should we refrain from investigating this because
Lamarck went down a blind alley?

Just looked in Wikipedia for the spelling of Lamarck's name --- what
happened when fanboys grabbed one of Lamarck's least-important ideas
and ran amok with it reads a lot like the "global warming" mania.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:35:58 AM UTC-4, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 5:53:41 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/26/2016 4:43 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
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


There's more money in Global Warming than even Scientology!

If there was much money in preventing climate change, then you would see capitalism invest in it.

Regrettably, the bicycle is not that much of a business.

again, IF the TM followed 'SCIENCE' in Goo News then a vast march toward clean energy production is apparent. Multifaceted.

I was actively involved in energy planning research with the UF. However on site and in process we were stopped by the State and organized crime whom would rather control their non existent processes than allow my unregulated ie not a member, progress.

After all, there's a lot of money in it.

We completed a preliminary study of wide spread moisture production in the SW.

OC out of Las Vegas poisoned me 3 times, attacked me every hour at night with sonic guns, chase cars equipped with loudspeakers in the pouring rain (mine) across Nevada's gold fields at 2AM .....giving the opinion as I left for the east that OC was not interested in rain, I was forbidden to return to the SW or the Rockies.

get the picture ?

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 4:05:25 PM UTC-4, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 11:35:58 AM UTC-4, Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 5:53:41 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 10/26/2016 4:43 PM, Andre Jute wrote:
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


There's more money in Global Warming than even Scientology!

If there was much money in preventing climate change, then you would see capitalism invest in it.

Regrettably, the bicycle is not that much of a business.

again, IF the TM followed 'SCIENCE' in Goo News then a vast march toward clean energy production is apparent. Multifaceted.

I was actively involved in energy planning research with the UF. However on site and in process we were stopped by the State and organized crime whom would rather control their non existent processes than allow my unregulated ie not a member, progress.

After all, there's a lot of money in it.

We completed a preliminary study of wide spread moisture production in the SW.

OC out of Las Vegas poisoned me 3 times, attacked me every hour at night with sonic guns, chase cars equipped with loudspeakers in the pouring rain (mine) across Nevada's gold fields at 2AM .....giving the opinion as I left for the east that OC was not interested in rain, I was forbidden to return to the SW or the Rockies.

get the picture ?

today

http://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016162

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-atomics...er-fusion.html