Humanity's overall environmental footprint is not sustainable

Jun 06, 2014 by Jochem Vreeman
Humanity's overall environmental footprint is not sustainable

Substantial, fundamental changes in the world economy are required to reduce humanity's overall environmental footprint to a sustainable level. This is the conclusion of Arjen Hoekstra, professor of Water Management at the University of Twente. He publishes his findings in the article "Humanity's unsustainable environmental footprint" in Science magazine.

Hoekstra, mainly known for the , has published the research together with his German counterpart Thomas Wiedmann, employed by the University of New South Wales in Australia. In Science, the authors describe how intertwined the global economy, politics, consumption and trade are in their effect on global land, water and raw material consumption and on the climate.

Too little responsibility

"Our article mainly focuses on understanding the interdependence of the different types of footprints and the role that businesses, consumers and governments play in creating our overall footprint," says Hoekstra. "We know that we are not sufficiently sustainable in our actions. But the interdependence has not previously been shown in this way. The various players have divergent interests and take too little responsibility. Consumers do not feel responsible for what producers do and politicians focus too much on growth, exports and cheap imports. For example, who feels responsible for the distress caused when we deplete the resources in China because of cheap imports? If you buy a stolen bicycle, you are liable to punishment and individually responsible. But isn't the consumption of products that are not produced sustainably also irresponsible behaviour? Rethinking the , that's what it's all about."

Humanity's overall environmental footprint is not sustainable

Hoekstra and Wiedmann map out mankind's total in a scientific, unique manner, but also realize that a solution is not immediately obvious. "This of course requires fundamental changes in the and international cooperation. But understanding the role of the various parties and the enormous complexity underlying our overall footprint is a first step. Everyone should assume and be given greater supply-chain responsibility; only then can we sustain our society", concludes Hoekstra.

Explore further: Business to take responsibility for sustainable freshwater use

More information: The complete report is available online: www.ayhoekstra.nl/pubs/Hoekstr… nmentalFootprint.pdf

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Innovative online tool to drive sustainable water use

Sep 03, 2013

Water Footprint Network, the leading global authority on Water Footprint Assessment, is to launch the world's first online tool to calculate and map water footprints, and assess their sustainability. The Water Footprint Assessment ...

The true raw material footprint of nations

Sep 02, 2013

The amount of raw materials needed to sustain the economies of developed countries is significantly greater than presently used indicators suggest, a new Australian study has revealed.

New study of global freshwater scarcity

Mar 01, 2012

A new report published in the online journal PLoS ONE, analyzing water consumption in 405 river basins around the world, found that water scarcity impacts at least 2.7 billion people for at least one month each year. ...

Recommended for you

EU leaders seek last-minute climate deal

3 hours ago

European Union leaders came under pressure Thursday to strike a deal aimed at bolstering Brussels as a trailblazer in fighting global climate change as negotiations went down to the wire.

Research team studies 'regime shifts' in ecosystems

6 hours ago

The prehistory of major ecological shifts spanning multiple millennia can be read in the fine print of microscopic algae, according to a new study led by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

User comments : 168

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (23) Jun 06, 2014
"Substantial, fundamental changes in the world economy"
Yes, socialism needs to be abolished.

"For example, who feels responsible for the distress caused when we deplete the resources in China because of cheap imports?"

Why don't the Chinese feel responsible? Their communist leaders don't allow it.

" Everyone should assume and be given greater supply-chain responsibility; "
Responsibility derives from ownership. Protect private property rights and responsibility will follow.
Scottingham
4.3 / 5 (23) Jun 06, 2014
whoa whoa whoa....You're saying socialism is the cause of our resource depletion without any regard for consequences? That sure sounds like capitalism to me...

Why do we have stuff made in China? Because our capitalist corps can get their products made cheaper there. Communism has nothing to do with it.

China is economically capitalist, without all that messy obstructionism you get with a democratic society. They sort of get the best of both worlds.

Now, I do somewhat agree with you that 'ownership' will then bring about a sense of responsibility, but it's a pretty insane oversimplification. What about the slum-lord who owns the apartment complex? There doesn't seem to be any responsibility there beyond the legal (dang regulations) minimum.

Go jack off with your invisible hand.

PS- I'm not socialist in the classic sense. More details later, maybe.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (22) Jun 06, 2014
Results of communism:

"People moved because they wanted better options for their children's education; they were distressed about the growing pollution problems plaguing China's cities; and they were concerned about food safety in the country, which in the latest scare involved tainted dog treats."
http://fortune.co...gration/

Because our capitalist corps can get their products made cheaper there. Communism has nothing to do with it.


Communism has EVERYTHING to do with it.
China is economically capitalist,

No, it is not. The state owns and controls all.
What about the slum-lord who owns the apartment complex?

What about it?
How can anyone be a slum lord if there is competition for housing to lower rents and housing costs? Competition for housing markets are strictly controlled by various govt entities to keep housing costs high in many areas.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2014
"Just because the Chinese government can move a village and build a road without holding a single hearing doesn't mean the free market has taken hold. Indeed, it shows the opposite: China's economy is largely state-planned, state-owned and state-run. The government uses capitalism only as a tool to reach its ends, not as a true expression of a free market.

Worse, where the Chinese government compromises the free market, it does so to fulfill its own desires of effective control over the entire country. It's capitalism of the state, by the state and for the state, where the state is the principal economic actor"
http://blogs.reut...nockoff/
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2014
"Rent control has changed the cities where it is in effect. In most cases, almost no new rental housing has been constructed in cities after rent control was enacted. Prospective landlords have found something better to do with their money than build housing from which they could not realize what they consider to be a reasonable return.

There have been many secondary effects. In some cases, existing landlords have been unable to maintain the buildings properly with the low rents. Maintenance has gone down, and the buildings have deteriorated. In revenge, the city councils have issued citations to landlords (called "slumlords" by the press) for housing code violations. Some have been carted off to jail for failure to maintain their apartment buildings properly."
http://www.adamsm...s-cities

runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2014
Ryggy baby's kicked on his favourite (read - only) subject I see .... yawn.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (19) Jun 06, 2014
whoa whoa whoa....You're saying socialism is the cause of our resource depletion without any regard for consequences? That sure sounds like capitalism to me...
@Scottingham
pay rygg no mind, he is the uber socialist troll here.
EVERYTHING is socialist. your post is, my hair is, the sky is... mustaches prove it, physics proves it, rainbows and MLP proves it...
and he will now innundate the site with a flood of irrelevant material proving that he is well versed in SPAMMING, TROLLING and irrelevant data...
Ryggy baby's kicked on his favourite (read - only) subject I see .... yawn.
@Runrig
yeah... I guess that yawn makes you socialist, right? ROTFLMFAO
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2014
Socialism, state control of private property.

State control of the water in California has returned California to a desert.

And, again, the socialists here, runny and stumpy (are you related to Ren and Stimpy?) can't defend socialism.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2014
Rygg2 is proving his stupidity again:

State control of the water in California has returned California to a desert.

And, again, the socialists here, runny and stumpy (are you related to Ren and Stimpy?) can't defend socialism.


Why on earth would they need to defend socialism on a science site?

Why on earth would they defend socialism when they are not socialists?

Why on earth would you blame socialism for drought?

Your lack of understanding or reason is astounding. Get out of your mother's basement and see the sun. Get off welfare and get a job.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 06, 2014
Socialism, state control of private property.

State control of the water in California has returned California to a desert.

And, again, the socialists here, runny and stumpy (are you related to Ren and Stimpy?) can't defend socialism.


ryggy baby...
Have you got Tourettes?
Seriously?
You know, this uncontrollable vocalising of objectionable language, in your case generally connected with the politics you dislike.
It may be an idea to seek medical help.
They can do wonders these days.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2014
What did the author say?
"Substantial, fundamental changes in the world economy are required ..."

What changes?

Since ALL the economies of the world some variety of socialism, do the authors advocate MORE socialism or less?
The article singles out China, with its communist controlled economy. What should a more free economies do about China? Demand less communism before trading?
Some countries use slave labor (prisoners) to produce goods. USSR used to do this, but at what quality? With free markets and real competition, no slave based economy can produce quality products.
All water resources in the western US are under the jurisdiction of the state. What has this lead to? Wasted water and subsidized growth that can't be sustained. If rice farmers in CA or cotton farmers in AZ had to pay for the full cost of water, would they have ever been in business?
Govt subsided crops in deserts create wealth for the state to plunder until that wealth can't be sustained. That's socialism's fault.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2014
The US federal govt went on a dam building spree in the 30s when the govt destroyed the economy in the Great Depression.
Grand Coulee dam allowed the residents of WA and the region to have very cheap electricity. So cheap Alcoa built an aluminum plant in NW Washington helping the war effort and Boeing.
When California re-regulated its electric power system in 2000 to try and keep more power plants from being built in the state, Alcoa sold 'their' cheap power to California.

There were no free markets here, but the socialists blamed 'markets' for the failure of California to regulate electricity.

Another feature of the dam process, states negotiated for water from the Colorado River. Most of the water from Boulder Dam, built in the 30s, was allocated to CA, some to AZ and not much for NV.
When Las Vegas was growing and needed water, they paid Santa Barbra to use its desalination plant for its share of CO river water.
All the water is state owned.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2014
Socialism, state control of private property.



What a moron.

Only a moron would invent a definition for a term, and then build a cherry-picked fortress of quotemined Fool's Gold from the Vault of Irrelevant Inanity within which to enshrine it.

The generally accepted definition of Socialism is as follows:

1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

Now, go bloviate in the mangyhole,

PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (18) Jun 06, 2014
If rice farmers in CA or cotton farmers in AZ had to pay for the full cost of water, would they have ever been in business? Govt subsided crops in deserts create wealth for the state to plunder until that wealth can't be sustained.
No wealth was created for the rice and cotton farm owners? Never mind all the other farmers in the Central Valley -- across the US, CA grows 100% of all almonds, 96% of all avocados, 92% of all broccoli, etc.:

http://www.stuffa...ture.htm

So, no jobs created for the farm workers? No locally grown staples available to consumers in nearby counties/states and across the Union, lowering prices of all products involving those raw inputs? Wealth was created only for the state, and the state took it ALL (i.e. 100% taxation?)

And there I thought you were just an ideologically brainwashed idiot spammer fueled by the right-wing blogosphere. But you really *can't* think straight to save your life. You really *are* mentally ill.
Bob Osaka
4.7 / 5 (12) Jun 06, 2014
Politics aside, the replacement of the internal combustion engine as the driving force of the world's economy should be given priority. A linear motor network would be the most energy efficient, the safest and the most environmentally-friendly solution.
The problem is more the prevailing economic powers: automobile manufacturers, petroleum corporations and the axial industries unwillingness to relinquish power, than a political one.
We must destroy the old world in order to replace it with the new. How to do that without hurting anyone is the real question.
Competition, we are told, is better than cooperation. Perhaps on the speedway but not in traffic.
Grallen
4 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2014
I think Ryg has an irrational fear of anything with a flavour of socialism.

I also don't think he can see the difference between moderate socialism and outright communism.

@Ryg: Do you realize that being part of a country, having a military, police, and law itself are all forms of socialism? You can't go 100% "right" without complete anarchy.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Jun 07, 2014
"Politics aside,"...."We must destroy the old world i"...
Doesn't sound like you want to set aside politics.

I also don't think he can see the difference between moderate socialism and outright communism.


The state uses force making you do what the state wants you to do. It makes no difference who comprises the state and the only difference is the response when the victims oppose state force. In the end ALL socialist states WILL resort to extreme force when their power is threatened.
Do you realize that being part of a country, having a military, police, and law itself are all forms of socialism?


No, it's not. When the state's ONLY function is to protect, not plunder private property, there is no socialism. (Bastiat, The Law).
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2014
"Too many greens take their science a la carte. Where scientific research tells greens things they like to hear, greens get all self righteous about "science deniers." But whenever some poor scientist somewhere attacks a cherished green shibboleth, hordes of vicious and bitter green activists hurl angry accusations about the corruption of the scientific process by corporate interests."
"to save the planet, beat the greens. That is the paradoxical situation green anti-science bigotry puts us in: for green goals to be met, the green movement must often fail."
http://www.the-am...-greens/
orti
1.8 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2014
"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". Thomas Robert Malthus, 1798
He was wrong then. He is now.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2014
moderate socialism and outright communism.

Tyranny is as tyranny does.

""Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals." "
CS Lewis.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2014
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.

It is what we are.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2014
"The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". Thomas Robert Malthus, 1798
He was wrong then. He is now.
-This is only if you are capable of ignoring the impact that family planning alone has had on the reduction of population growth throughout the world. Or if you are completely ignorant of the fact.

Are you completely ignorant orti?

ONE BILLION ABORTED in the last 100 years. A country the size of India was never born, never had their own children to the 3rd and 4th gen to starve, revolt, and demand war.
http://www.johnst...312.html

-And no the 1.1 MILLION abortions a month aren't committed by lascivious drug-crazed socialists. The majority of them are married women.

This is not considering the 100s of millions more prevented through contraception.

And STILL the world is overcrowded.

People can only claim that overpop is a myth WITHOUT these figures.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2014
. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not.


But the computer is wrong, mammal's do not have such instincts.

And STILL the world is overcrowded.

ALL, ALL, human beings on the planet would fit into the continent of Australia with the same population density of Las Vegas, NV.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2014
ALL, ALL, human beings on the planet would fit into the continent of Australia with the same population density of Las Vegas, NV.
Yes but most of them would be dead in only a few weeks.

As usual you didn't read the article only the headline. The entire earth already can't support the existing population. Perhaps if they lived like Jesus, walking barefoot through the fields eating grass on Sunday, then it would work. No wait - lots of them already DO live that way.

"The world's population is growing by 200,000 people a day."

-Time to pray ryggy.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2014
The entire earth already can't support the existing population.

It is NOW, but if the socialism that is now restricting resources was removed, resources would be bountiful.
walking barefoot through the fields eating grass on Sunday

Thanks to socialist tyrannies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (11) Jun 07, 2014
It is NOW, but if the socialism that is now restricting resources was removed, resources would be bountiful
No it's not. It's being consumed. There is already not enough to go around. Soon there will be nothing left.

"842 million people in the world do not have enough to eat."

"The vast majority of hungry people (827 million) live in developing countries, where 14.3 percent of the population is undernourished.

"Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year."

" [southern] asia has the largest number of hungry people (over 500 million) but Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest prevalence (24.8 percent of pop)."

-Coincidentally these are regions where religions restrict a woman's ability to do much of anything but make babies, and there is limited or no access to family planning.

This creates the unfortunate situation where if you provide adequate nutrition it only increases the birthrate and so only lasts a gen.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (14) Jun 07, 2014
1. Auto, why do you care? You want more people to die anyway.
2. You are making my point, places that don't have enough food are socialist states with severe restrictions on trade and agriculture production.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 07, 2014
"Put up a dozen or so vertical farms, and all of a sudden you have yourself a self-sustaining closed-loop system that can feed an entire city. Running year-round, weather and pests are never a problem, so people can get all the nutrients they need even when a particular crop is technically out-of-season. Plus, arid or drought-ridden places can conserve massive amounts of water. All in all, it's pretty much a win-win. Now all we need are several specialists and some super-generous philanthropists willing to make it a reality"
http://science.ho...oors.htm

No, what is needed are entrepreneurs, not philanthropists, and govt regulations that don't get in the way.
Bob Osaka
3.2 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2014
You cannot find a peaceful solution for others, you may only help, and hope they find their own.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2014
1. Blah... You want more people to die anyway
No I don't. I would like to see lots fewer people born.
2. Blah... socialist states with severe restrictions on trade and agriculture production
The cultures which are growing beyond their means in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia are NOT socialist. They're religionist.

It's an ancient equation and quite easy to understand. So try. The only way to survive in history was to outgrow and overrun those who were trying to do the same to you.

If you didn't, they would. Guaranteed. To do this your women had to be forced to bear babies until it killed them. This is where religion came in.

Only god had the power to force people in great numbers to act against their nature. Only god could promise eternity in paradise, wishes granted, and certain revenge. People would do anything to get these gifts. Anything at all.

All he asked in return was to destroy his enemies and grow, and grow, and grow.

Religion is obsolete. Obviously.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 07, 2014
The cultures which are growing beyond their means in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia are NOT socialist. They're religionist.


Be specific.

Most of the countries in Africa are socialist tyrannies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 07, 2014
2. Blah... socialist states with severe restrictions on trade and agriculture production
The socialist states - Russia, china, Vietnam, etc - are doing quite well in terms of maintaining growth in keeping with their ability to provide for themselves. Pakistan, Egypt, and India, not so much.
Most of the countries in Africa are socialist tyrannies.
No most are run by very religious people or are populated by fundamentalists.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2014
Some states controls agriculture (socialism) such that almost no food can be produced. Cuba, DPRK, Zimbabwe, etc. fall into this category.
Some states control agriculture (socialism) such that farmers are paid NOT to produce and ban scientific breakthroughs to increase production. The US, and many European nations do this
NZ is the only country I know of that eliminated state control of agriculture.
Any argument that food resources are dwindling is specious when govt control of agriculture restricts production.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2014
Sub-Saharan Africa:
"Despite being home to several of the world's worst performing countries in terms of respect for human rights, the region saw overall if uneven progress toward democratization during the 1990s and the early 2000s. However, recent years have seen backsliding among both the top performers, such as South Africa, and the more repressive countries, such as The Gambia and Ethiopia. Lack of adherence to the rule of law, infringements on the freedoms of expression and association, widespread corruption, and discrimination against women and the LGBT community remain serious problems in many countries."
http://www.freedo...K0Cjb4is
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2014
"Economists have criticized farm subsidies on several counts. First, farm subsidies typically transfer income from consumers and taxpayers to relatively wealthy farmland owners and farm operators. Second, they impose net losses on society, often called deadweight losses, and have no clear broad social benefit (Alston and James 2002). Third, they impede movements toward more open international trade in commodities and thus impose net costs on the global economy "
"Support to farmers by Japan's and Korea's governments is a large part of the total world subsidy for rice. The highest national average support equivalent rates, across all major commodities, are offered in Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland, with average subsidies of about 65–75 percent of the value of production, and in Japan and Korea, with support rates of 60–65 percent. "
http://www.econli...ams.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2014
NZ is the only country I know of that eliminated state control of agriculture.
Any argument that food resources are dwindling is specious when govt control of agriculture restricts production.
So this includes ALL countries including those that are doing well? You call this an argument?
Despite being home to several of the world's worst performing countries in terms of respect for human rights
Human rights degrade as pops swell, unrest ensues, and govts crack down.
the region saw overall if uneven progress toward democratization during the 1990s and the early 2000s. However, recent years have seen backsliding among both the top performers, such as South Africa Ethiopia Ghana
OF COURSE. Democracy is delicate. It collapses easily like Weimar as pops swell, and no govt can make the majority of the people happy.

ALL these countries have religion-fueled pop problems. Religion forces pops to grow, keeps them ignorant, and tells them not to worry about tomorrow.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2014
ALL countries including those that are doing well?

Ehrlich disciples don't care if countries are 'doing well' as they proclaim the world is running out of food and more socialism must be implemented to save humanity.
It has been demonstrated that socialism is restricting food production around the world.
Until ALL socialist tyranny controlling agriculture are lifted, Ehrlich's claims of doom are specious.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2014
Who said anything about erlich? You said 'NZ is the only country I know of that eliminated state control of agriculture.' So if state control of agriculture is the norm then we should expect every state to be doing poorly, according to you. But

"The vast majority of hungry people (827 million) live in developing countries, where 14.3 percent of the population is undernourished.

"Poor nutrition causes nearly half (45%) of deaths in children under five - 3.1 million children each year."

" [southern] asia has the largest number of hungry people (over 500 million) but Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest prevalence (24.8 percent of pop)."

-People living beyond their means cannot support democracy as most of them are unhappy. Oppression evolves in order to quell increasing unrest.

Egyptians thought Mubarak was oppressive. The govt they have now is worse, of necessity.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Jun 08, 2014
So if state control of agriculture is the norm then we should expect every state to be doing poorly,


Socialists states that pay their farmers NOT to grow crops and keep product prices high restrict imports from countries that could produce those products at lower costs.
Then, add to that in the developing world socialist tyrannies, like Zimbabwe, Cuba, DPRK... that won't allow their producers the tools to produce.

Auto, like Ehrlich and his minions, claim there is not enough food. Yet socialist policies in restrict production in rich countries limits on free trade hurt producers in poor countries, AND, socialist tyrannies like DPRK and Cuba outright ban private production of food.
The problem is NOT natural resources. The problem is socialist tyrannies restricting the ability of people to fully use available resources.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2014
So if state control of agriculture is the norm then we should expect every state to be doing poorly,


Socialists states that pay their farmers NOT to grow crops and keep product prices high restrict imports from countries that could produce those products at lower costs.

Auto, like Ehrlich and his minions, claim there is not enough food. Yet socialist policies in restrict production in rich countries limits on free trade hurt producers in poor countries, AND, socialist tyrannies like DPRK and Cuba outright ban private production of food.
The problem is NOT natural resources. The problem is socialist tyrannies restricting the ability of people to fully use available resources.


Rygsuckn'. like his minions, is again mining Fool's Gold from the Vault of Irrelevant Inanity.

Here's his comment template:

"Socialists...coerce...socialism...property rights...state control...socialistic...socialist...property rights...free market...socialism...coerce...socialistic..."
Caliban
4.2 / 5 (15) Jun 08, 2014
Hey, rygsuckn'

Here's the definition of socialism --yet again:

so·cial·ism

[soh-shuh-liz-uhm]

NOUN
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

I'll keep reposting it, as needed, until you stop spamming us with comments based upon your personal, made-up(from whole cloth) definition of the term.

What a tiresome jackass.

On second thought --that's an insult to any mere jackass.

What a tiresome, spotty-bottomed troll.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2014
"In ways not seen since at least the McCarthy era, Americans are finding themselves increasingly constrained by a rising class—what I call the progressive Clerisy—that accepts no dissent from its basic tenets. Like the First Estate in pre-revolutionary France, the Clerisy increasingly exercises its power to constrain dissenting views, whether on politics, social attitudes or science.

An alliance of upper level bureaucrats and cultural elites, the Clerisy, for for all their concerns about inequality, have thrived, unlike most Americans, in recent years. They also enjoy strong relations with the power structure in Washington, Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Wall Street."
http://www.thedai...ent.html
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 08, 2014
"Capitalism and socialism are two distinct patterns of social organization. Private control of the means of production and public control are contradictory notions and not merely contrary notions. There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism."
"Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management."
"Every socialist is a disguised dictator."
"The socialists of Eastern Germany, the self-styled German Democratic Republic, spectacularly admitted the bankruptcy of the Marxian dreams when they built a wall to prevent their comrades from fleeing into the non-socialist part of Germany."
http://mises.org/...ocialism

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2014
Yet socialist policies in restrict production in rich countries limits on free trade hurt producers in poor countries, AND, socialist tyrannies like DPRK and Cuba outright ban private production of food
Youre losing coherence. Are you saying that restrictions on food production in rich countries hurt poor countries? How? Why would it be cheaper for them to import food from rich countries instead of growing it locally, unless they're out of room?
There is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would stand midway between capitalism and socialism."
But you say only NZ doesn't control agriculture. So according to you and mises the entire world must be entirely socialist. Except NZ. No wonder you're so grumpy.

But I bet NZ is as well.
http://www.ssa.go...n9p3.pdf

-Yup 'fraid so.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2014
Are you saying that restrictions on food production in rich countries hurt poor countries? How?

If you understood economics you might comprehend.
So according to you and mises the entire world must be entirely socialist.

There are others who agree.
NZ is socialist.
But, not long ago, they eliminated all agriculture subsidies.
"New Zealand's farm reforms of the 1980s dramatically illustrate the point. Faced with a budget crisis, New Zealand's government decided to eliminate nearly all farm subsidies. "
"Prior to the 1984 reforms, subsidies stifled farm productivity by distorting market signals and blocking innovation. "
"New Zealand farmers cut costs, diversified their land use, sought nonfarm income, and developed new products. "
"More efficient agricultural production in New Zealand has also spurred better environmental management. Cutting farm subsidies, for example, has reduced the previous overuse of fertilizer"
http://www.huffin...ubsidies
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2014
"Subsidies and price controls are protectionist measures that insulate European farmers from the world market, raising prices on foodstuffs and distorting the market for goods.

In particular, they hurt the world's most vulnerable. Millions of people in developing nations—which are normally agriculturally endowed—are blocked from the European market and prevented from profiting off of European consumers. This stifles development in third-world countries and keeps millions in poverty."
http://dailysigna...rldwide/
"the U.S. is opening up foreign markets for exports by forcing poor countries to remove government subsidies and lower import tariffs while the U.S. shields itself from foreign competition by increasing its subsidies and maintaining tariffs.

These measures have allowed the U.S. to dump its farm surplus on world markets. For example, the U.S. exports corn at prices 20 percent below the cost of actual production, and wheat at 46 pe
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 08, 2014
"These measures have allowed the U.S. to dump its farm surplus on world markets. For example, the U.S. exports corn at prices 20 percent below the cost of actual production, and wheat at 46 percent below cost. This has resulted in Mexican corn farmers being put out of business. The dramatic increase in U.S. agricultural subsidies will further jeopardize the livelihoods of those in developing countries. Poor regions, like Africa, depend on agriculture for about a quarter of their total output, most of it coming from low-income families.

Exporters in Africa will also suffer. According to the World Bank, West African cotton exporters already lose about $250 million a year as a direct result of U.S. subsidies; "
http://www.mindfu...ct02.htm
mooster75
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 09, 2014
You guys must have a lot more time on your hands than I do if you actually still read his posts. It's never anything new.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2014
There is nothing new from physorg or their fellow socialists here when shown the failure of their socialism.
rlhamil
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 09, 2014
Whether it's climate change, or any other form of alleged (or for all I care, real) environmental consequences, the bottom line presented is usually massive collectivism and central planning.

Individual human freedom is more important than whether or not life of any form, human or otherwise, continues on this planet.

If you want to take the pressure off, reduce the population by having the rabid environmentalists (and their collectivist collaborators) commit suicide.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2014
having the rabid environmentalists (and their collectivist collaborators) commit suicide.

They don't have the courage of their convictions.
Which is why they must use hired guns, socialist tyrants, to force everyone else to live the way they think we should.
rockwolf1000
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2014
Whether it's climate change, or any other form of alleged (or for all I care, real) environmental consequences, the bottom line presented is usually massive collectivism and central planning.

Individual human freedom is more important than whether or not life of any form, human or otherwise, continues on this planet.

If you want to take the pressure off, reduce the population by having the rabid environmentalists (and their collectivist collaborators) commit suicide.


Does that mean you think I should have the freedom to hold your head under water for a few minutes?
Gimp
1.7 / 5 (6) Jun 10, 2014
Intelligent comeback Rocky, but Rygg has a point, sort of and tends to beat you over the head with it. :-)

Phys.org is fundamentally socialist and left leaning, it has lots of interesting and informative stuff, but it has an agenda.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2014
Our "ecological footprint" is and always has been a function of our technology. There is no such thing as "unsustainable", there is only unsustainable with current levels of technology...
Bob Osaka
5 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2014
"Humanity's overall ecological footprint is not sustainable," means we are all going to die if we stay on this path. Yes, we are all going to die, we are all mortal, but what about our progeny?
Let's all wallow in this quagmire and talk about cold war politics because after all, that is what an intelligent species does when its survival is threatened.
Why bother? Hope.
One correct response is worth the entire history of mistaken thought.
antonima
5 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2014
How come every country on earth expects to have an economy growing in the double digits? This is INSANITY, even a 5 year old understands you cannot have infinite growth!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
Does that mean you think I should have the freedom to hold your head under water for a few minutes?

Why do socialists want to (and do) murder all those who disagree with them?

How come every country on earth expects to have an economy growing in the double digits?

No country on earth is following policies to achieve such growth.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 11, 2014
Does that mean you think I should have the freedom to hold your head under water for a few minutes?

Why do socialists want to (and do) murder all those who disagree with them?

people who argue with you are just displaying common sense and a lack of selfish thought. They are not "socialist".
I'm not FI.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2014
They are not "socialist"

'They' are not opposed to socialism and attack those who are.
Therefore, they must be socialists.
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2014
How come every country on earth expects to have an economy growing in the double digits? This is INSANITY, even a 5 year old understands you cannot have infinite growth!


Economic growth means many things, one of which is advancing technology. So, should we close down the patent offices? Has everything that can be done been done?
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2014
Does that mean you think I should have the freedom to hold your head under water for a few minutes?

Why do socialists want to (and do) murder all those who disagree with them?


Why don't you try following along for once?

My facetious statement was in response to:

"Individual human freedom is more important than whether or not life of any form, human or otherwise, continues on this planet."

- in which rlhamil suggested that I can do whatever I desire regardless of how it effects others.

That is the capitalist viewpoint is it not ryggsuckin?

It is infinitely easier to follow a thread when you're not suckin' those computer dusters all day rygg. Give it a try! Plus they're super dangerous rygg.

Look at: http://en.wikiped...inhalant

See I really do care. I guess that's just the socialist in me.

runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
They are not "socialist"

'They' are not opposed to socialism and attack those who are.
Therefore, they must be socialists.


Stupid twisted logic..

I am not opposed to homosexuality and I *attack* those that are.
I am not homosexual.

Evidenced again from a twisted person.
You display many of the things I despise in humanity.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2014
Why don't you try following along for once?

My facetious statement was in response to:

"Individual human freedom is more important than whether or not life of any form, human or otherwise, continues on this planet."

- in which rlhamil suggested that I can do whatever I desire regardless of how it effects others.

That is the capitalist viewpoint is it not ryggsuckin?

It's actually the actions of sociopath Rock.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2014
They are not "socialist"

'They' are not opposed to socialism and attack those who are.
Therefore, they must be socialists.

@rygg
you are not actively opposing pedophilia, therefore you MUST be a pedophile.
same logic, so therefore you are a pedo skulking a science site.

this is YOUR logic, and thus irrefutable in your mind

Stupid twisted logic..
@runrig
just go with it! according to him, this means all you have to do is show that he does NOT oppose something, therefore he IS that something according to HIS logic, so this means that HE IS a PEDO, right?

i just calls it as I sees it... runrig, just call it back at him!
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2014

Why don't you try following along for once?

My facetious statement was in response to:

"Individual human freedom is more important than whether or not life of any form, human or otherwise, continues on this planet."

- in which rlhamil suggested that I can do whatever I desire regardless of how it effects others.

That is the capitalist viewpoint is it not ryggsuckin?

It is infinitely easier to follow a thread when you're not suckin' those computer dusters all day rygg. Give it a try! Plus they're super dangerous rygg.

Look at: http://en.wikiped...inhalant

See I really do care. I guess that's just the socialist in me.


Holy crap, I wrote effects instead of affects. Oops!

At least I didn't write: "'They' are not opposed to socialism and attack those who are.
Therefore, they must be socialists."

That would be really embarrassing.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Jun 11, 2014
What's even more embarrassing is the idea that you can pass whatever government regulation you desire regardless of how it affects others and somehow THAT'S not morally abhorrent or selfish....

Not trying to put words in mouths or ascribe beliefs where they aren't held, but it seems introspection is lacking and hypocrisy abounds hereabouts....
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 11, 2014
What's even more embarrassing is the idea that you can pass whatever government regulation you desire regardless of how it affects others and somehow THAT'S not morally abhorrent or selfish....

Not trying to put words in mouths or ascribe beliefs where they aren't held, but it seems introspection is lacking and hypocrisy abounds hereabouts....


MM: I haven't seen anyone say this. Instead, many of us see a technical need for specific changes in behavior and the best way to ensure that is regulation. The regulation is specific in nature and is a response to a need. You can be of the opinion that the need does not exist, but many of us believe it does. The result is a process that attempts to assign measured responses to the situation.

If you believe there should be no regulation of systems such as the release of pollutants such as lead, radium, and hexavalent chrome then you are in Rygg2's ball park and well out of mine. If you have technical objections, state them.
Modernmystic
4 / 5 (3) Jun 11, 2014
Well that's the "problem" thermo. We can both agree on issues like lead, radium, and hexavalent chorme because those actually harm people...this is a demonstrable fact. This is outside the purview of culture, morality, and opinion. The sky is blue, and lead is pretty damned hard on human beings...

We can't all agree on say, what is an ACTUAL public good however. Medical care, gun control, hate speech, abortion, school curriculum (this one has qualifiers), and a range of other things. I do actually thing you and I would agree on social policy/morality and less on say....economic and energy policy. We all do have to live together though, and hence all have to "put up with" things that we'd rather not. My general rule of thumb is that if it doesn't break legs or pick pockets it ought to be permissible...as much as possible....but a loooooot of people (especially conservatives) don't agree with me :)

The core is that the government is just as capable a bludgeon as an individual...
antonima
5 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2014
How come every country on earth expects to have an economy growing in the double digits? This is INSANITY, even a 5 year old understands you cannot have infinite growth!


Economic growth means many things, one of which is advancing technology. So, should we close down the patent offices? Has everything that can be done been done?


No, but every technology has a down side. My point is: the economy will not keep growing for ever, so unless growth is curbed there WILL come a day when populations keep growing but wealth remains fixed. And then everyone gets poorer.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
MM: You said:
The core is that the government is just as capable a bludgeon as an individual...


And I agree with that. My concern is that "IF" global warming is real (and I have managed to convince myself it is by doing the math) and we wait until it becomes crystal clear for everyone it will result in government not being able to protect its citizens - which I believe is its main purpose. IF I (and thousands of others) are right, this will be a serious problem for my grand kids. So, I come to this forum and try to use physics to help others understand what will be happening and why. Some on this forum (Rygg2, Alche, JDswallow, and others) are intent on spreading misinformation. I feel a responsibility to try and answer the misinformation with information. There are a number of others who do the same thing and spend their time tilting at the windmills of the deniers. So, I will continue to respond to misinformation and try to help those who really do want to know.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 11, 2014
MM Continued: You say we can both agree on issues like lead and radium. Of course we can. However, if you spend the time to build a model and look at how the atmosphere really works you will understand that CO2 is insidious and will change the earth in ways we really can't completely predict. Are you willing to discuss why you think that CO2 is not a bad actor in the atmosphere? Can you go through the math and do you want to spend the time. If you do, the thread that I wrote with Alche (until he bailed out screaming) is a good way to start and it has a number of good references. I can give you more if you want. I am not asking you to "trust" me or anyone else, but you can check my approach, compare it with others, and do the math yourself. That is the only way I can see that you can then tell me you got different results and you can show me how I was wrong. Otherwise, we disagree, but I have done the math and I don't know if you have or not.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 12, 2014
so unless growth is curbed there WILL come a day when populations keep growing but wealth remains fixed. And then everyone gets poorer.


Like now?
But it's caused by socialism, not limited resources.

I have done the math

Wow, you have a super computer at home to process your 'maths'?
Modernmystic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 12, 2014
Thermo,

Thanks for the response. I too have been convinced that AGW is in fact happening and a problem.

I may just be talking out of my lower orifice here, but I don't think that those here arguing against AGW are doing so because they haven't been convinced. I actually think most of them have on some level of consciousness anyway. I think the reason they continue to argue against it is because they are more afraid of the policies being proposed to solve the problem than the problem itself (no matter how irrational that may sound). I have to admit I too am skeptical of wind and solar power being used on a large scale to power a modern post-industrial economy. I too am skeptical of carbon taxes and a virtual dictatorship over the energy sector of the economy.

I think AGW is a technological problem with a technological solution, not a policy issue. That's why I come here and argue for nuclear power, because I've been convinced of its merits over a long time....save that for later...
Modernmystic
4 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
No, but every technology has a down side. My point is: the economy will not keep growing for ever, so unless growth is curbed there WILL come a day when populations keep growing but wealth remains fixed. And then everyone gets poorer.


No, you couldn't be more wrong. Wealth hasn't been fixed since the industrial revolution and prior to that it simply grew so slowly it just looked like a fixed pie. This isn't a zero sum game anymore. We could live with 20 trillion people on this planet with a far higher standard of living that even the most wealthy person on the planet today and with a "footprint" of virtually zero if we had mature nanotechnology or a host of any other techs. out there on the horizon.

I'm quite serious, and I'm quite correct in this. I recommend some reading on the subject starting with Engines of Creation. It's dated, but a good place to start and go from there. We truly can have our cake and eat it if we "play our technology right"...
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014

We could live with 20 trillion people on this planet with


I think I puked in my mouth a bit when I read that.

It's hard enough getting a campsite at the park or a spot to go fishing as it is.

Why would you want that many stinking, greedy, lazy, stupid, disgusting, thieving slobs around? Yuk. The whole planet would smell like an old gym bag.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
I think I puked in my mouth a bit when I read that.

It's hard enough getting a campsite at the park or a spot to go fishing as it is.


You lack perspective, and are thinking in only two dimensions. We could have 20 trillion people on the planet and have MORE space available to live than we currently do.
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
I think I puked in my mouth a bit when I read that.


You lack perspective, and are thinking in only two dimensions.


No I don't lack anything. I'm a realist. And I realize that there are way too many people on the planet now. We are consuming resources at an ever increasing rate and there is no technology in the pipeline to ameliorate that. Is it your goal to substitute all the natural systems on the planet with artificial constructs simply to accommodate more people? You are over estimating our technical prowess. We currently have no idea why honey bees are in decline but we depend on them for pollinating crops. Are you suggesting we build trillions of tiny robots to do that job? Who will pay for that? Imagine the expense. And you think AGW policies are expensive?

Please do tell how 20 trillion people would fit with MORE room.

Live like ants?

If you want to live in a world where people are housed and fed like livestock that's your prerogative.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014

No I don't lack anything. I'm a realist.


Judging by the histrionics I just read, you're nothing of the kind. You've made up your mind and I'm quite sure no one will confuse you with facts or new ideas. I won't cast pearls....

Thankfully the younger generations are much more open minded to new technology and understand that living on this planet is NOT a zero sum game where either we win or the environment wins. I look forward to their future without being burdened by the prejudices and defeatism that pervades the modern environmental culture.

rockwolf1000
4 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014

No I don't lack anything. I'm a realist.


Thankfully the younger generations are much more open minded to new technology and understand that living on this planet is NOT a zero sum game where either we win or the environment wins. I look forward to their future without being burdened by the prejudices and defeatism that pervades the modern environmental culture.


I'm more a realist than you'll ever be. Your grandiose expectations of the future will never be realized. Your naivety is unmatched.

Again you won't answer the question. How would 20 trillion people fit on this planet and there be MORE room?

Why not be honest and just say that you hope that if there were 20 trillion people on this planet at least one of them would like you? That's your real motivation isn't it?

There there, you'll make a friend eventually. Maybe. Then again....
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
Why not be honest and just say that you hope that if there were 20 trillion people on this planet at least one of them would like you? That's your real motivation isn't it?


You've been nothing but hostile and immature on this board to anyone who thinks differently, or holds a different opinion than you do. You are virtually unable to have a discussion with someone without getting so defensive as to cross way over the line into genuine hostility and hatred. You are apparently incapable of introspection, or honest evaluation of your own positions and judging by your level of defensiveness on environmental issues quite likely define your persona based on such trivia.

What POSSIBLE reason would I have for answering a question for you when all I'd get back is irrational venom spat at me in an attempt to defend your fragile ego? I see no evidence such a "conversation" would be constructive...quite the opposite.

Find a mirror and talk to it, you'll be less threatened....
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 12, 2014
I think I puked in my mouth a bit when I read that.

It's hard enough getting a campsite at the park or a spot to go fishing as it is.


You lack perspective, and are thinking in only two dimensions. We could have 20 trillion people on the planet and have MORE space available to live than we currently do.


You've gone from an unrealistic hope in technology to tinfoil hat wearing territory.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
I think I puked in my mouth a bit when I read that.

It's hard enough getting a campsite at the park or a spot to go fishing as it is.


You lack perspective, and are thinking in only two dimensions. We could have 20 trillion people on the planet and have MORE space available to live than we currently do.


You've gone from an unrealistic hope in technology to tinfoil hat wearing territory.


I see.

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future scientific advances."


Dr. Lee DeForest

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."


Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."


Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."


Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943

Too many to really post....
rockwolf1000
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
@MM

"What POSSIBLE reason would I have for answering a question for you when all I'd get back is irrational venom spat at me in an attempt to defend your fragile ego? I see no evidence such a "conversation" would be constructive...quite the opposite."

Why not just admit you're a liar and an idiot. The fact is there is no way the planet would support 20 trillion people. Nor is there any evidence that population density is desirable.

"You've been nothing but hostile and immature on this board to anyone who thinks differently, or holds a different opinion than you do."

I do get hostile. Especially towards stupid people who make stupid assertions which you do on a regular basis. In general, stupid people make me sick to my stomach. You make me nauseous.

You obviously have no concept of how large a number 20 trillion actually is. We're talking over 2600 times more people than current population. Give your head a shake.
Modernmystic
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
I do get hostile. Especially towards stupid people who make stupid assertions which you do on a regular basis. In general, stupid people make me sick to my stomach. You make me nauseous.


Indeed. The normal response to stupid assertions is laughter, or simple dismissal. You get sick to your stomach, which means you get afraid. It means you feel threatened so you get defensive. The fact that you can get soooooo hooked by something a total stranger says (much less someone who you know personally and are more invested in) suggests that you honestly have a pathological personality.

Moreover you get this way when people make assertions you THINK are stupid. You don't have a corner on the truth though. Most people over 35 get this very solidly, and are willing to have civil discourse with people enough to at least see where they're coming from. You are incapable of this, you need to grow up. I'm happy to have a discussion, I don't seriously engage people throwing tantrums.
rockwolf1000
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
Ya. I'm afraid.

As I stated. you suffer from delusions of grandeur. People like you make me sick because it reinforces the notion that: THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY I'M FROM THIS PLANET given I'm constantly surrounded by retards and idiots.

People like you think this represents mankind's hope for the future.

http://www.all-cr...t-01.jpg

That's how you fit 20 trillion people on the planet. No thanks
rockwolf1000
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
And I'll remind you that you were the first to sling insults at me with "You lack perspective, and are thinking in only two dimensions".
That initiates an irreversible downward spiral of the conversation, which frankly I couldn't care less about given your propensity for ignoring the facts which has been shown by Otto and others.

Governments and the UN have civil discourse. Do they ever accomplish anything? No.

So the net results of civil discourse in general are nil. Why bother?
rockwolf1000
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
@MM

I suggest you read this. Then read it again. Read it til you understand then read it again.

http://www.scienc...-minute/

This is your desired future for humanity:
http://bonlemon.b...ive.html
http://www.farmsa...00_1.jpg
http://liberation...d-nt.JPG
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (4) Jun 12, 2014
And I'll remind you that you were the first to sling insults at me with "You lack perspective, and are thinking in only two dimensions".


If you consider those insults then, well I guess it really would be impossible to have a conversation with you.

I was attempting to explain to you my position and pointing out that you're going to have to be willing to accept a different perspective and way of thinking about how we inhabit this planet in order to do so.

Governments and the UN have civil discourse. Do they ever accomplish anything? No.


I think they've accomplished quite a bit actually. They certainly don't accomplish anything by not talking. The alternative is usually conflict...after which you're going to have to engage civilly again anyway. Quite literally civil discourse is the only way human beings actually get anything accomplished, fighting is a break in the conversation needed by children inhabiting adult bodies.

I won't respond to the strawmen links either.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (5) Jun 12, 2014
(cont)

THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY I'M FROM THIS PLANET given I'm constantly surrounded by retards and idiots.


....and there's no other possible explanation or point of view for that is there?

I point that out because I have to wonder about someone who holds someone up as a bastion of facts and having a grip on them as someone who said Europeans had every right to the Americas because they were basically empty....


I think I puked in my mouth a bit when I read that.


Also if someone said that to you would YOU consider that an insult? Why not?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
Those who are afraid of too many people are really afraid of competition and are stuck in a tribal mindset.
Humans are quite intelligent and when they have the opportunity can innovate and create solutions to their billions of challenges they face every day.
Socialists fear the power of individuals empowered to innovate and improve their lives because they discover they don't need the regulatory state tyranny to protect them and save them from the next new calamity, like climate change, ginned up by the socialists.
Our ancestors have been adapting to more severe climate changes, with much less technology, for tens of thousands of years.
If socialists truly liked people, they would not be actively promoting policies to kill so many.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
many of us see a technical need for specific changes in behavior and the best way to ensure that is regulation.


What evidence do you have that regulations, (force), created by corrupted politicians will ensure the behavior 'many of us' believe is needed?

Who are the 'many of us' and why do you believe you know what's best for 'the rest of us"?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
Are Obama and the EPA the 'many of us'?
"President Obama and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy have shaped national energy policy through regulations and overreach, without the input or consideration of the United States Congress or the state governments whose constituents will be left paying the price for higher electricity costs and weakened grid reliability. "
"Sen. Joe Manchin recently asked Norman Bay: "Mr. Bay, you have no direct experience in regulation of energy infrastructure or markets.

"The previous five chairmen all had more than 20 years of experience in the energy industry and as regulators before becoming chairman. Was Congress wrong when it previously required experience as a prerequisite for this position?"
- See more at: http://www.charle...eqK.dpuf-]http://www.charle...qK.dpuf-[/url] See more at: http://www.charle...eqK.dpuf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 12, 2014
"Right now the IPCC can't settle on a best-guess estimate within the 1.1‑4.8 degree range, though a number of scenarios for the year 2100 cluster around 2 degrees of warming. This is nearly the same range and best guess as the previous four reports of the IPCC stretching back to 1990. More astonishing, this range differs little from that proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It was Arrhenius, winner of the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1903, who first supplied the basic equation that forms the basis for modern climate models. Working without a computer, he estimated a range of climate sensitivity from a doubling of greenhouse gases of 1.6 to about 5 degrees Celsius, with a best guess of about 2.1 degrees."
http://www.weekly...l?page=3
Bob Osaka
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2014
@ryggesogn2
Svante also thought global warming would be a good thing as (he thought) it would stave off the next ice age.
He was also an unapologetic racist who died friendless and very few attended his funeral.

What is it that you fear?

That you may be wrong about AGW or that everyone else is?

Many have shouted "fire" in a crowded theater, is it your suggestion that we do nothing?
Weigh the cost of doing nothing and being wrong against the cost of doing something and being correct.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2014
What is it that you fear?

Totalitarian socialists like Bob Osaka and the others here.
is it your suggestion that we do nothing

We do what humans have done for thousands of years, adapt.

Why do socialists AGWites fear change?

Weigh the cost of doing nothing and being wrong against the cost of doing something and being correct.


Another false assumption typical of AGWites. How is adaptation doing nothing?
What is the cost of being wrong and triggering an ice age after destroying the economies of the world?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2014
"Rossiter, a former Democratic congressional candidate, has impeccably liberal credentials. As the founder of Demilitarization for Democracy he has campaigned against US backed wars in Central America and Southern Africa, against US military support for dictators and against anti-personnel landmines. But none of this was enough to spare him the wrath of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) when he wrote an OpEd in the Wall Street Journal describing man-made global warming as an "unproved science."

Two days later, he was sacked by email. The IPS said: "We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies...Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of US policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours.""
" "The left wants to stop industrialization - even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.""
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2014
The real agenda of the the AGWite socialists:

""The left wants to stop industrialization - even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false."

But the Institute for Policy Studies ("Ideas into Action for Peace, Justice, and the Environment") is ideologically committed to ensuring that Africans only enjoy the benefits of expensive, intermittent, inefficient renewable energy such as wind and solar."
"http://www.breitb...-victim"
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2014
So rygg,

If you took all the people who think AGW is real, and their solution was to build 4th generation passively safe nuclear power plants with a thorium fuel cycle, and or fast breeder reactors and reprocess the fuel. To take all the money we're currently spending on carbon taxes and regulating the existing gas, coal, and oil industries and pour it into developing better solar power and better batteries. Not one new regulation proposed and not one new mandate or tax break for people who act the way the federal government thinks they ought....

Would you have any objection to that?
Bob Osaka
5 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2014
What is it that you fear?

Totalitarian socialists like Bob Osaka and the others here.
is it your suggestion that we do nothing

We do what humans have done for thousands of years, adapt.

Why do socialists AGWites fear change?

Weigh the cost of doing nothing and being wrong against the cost of doing something and being correct.


Another false assumption typical of AGWites. How is adaptation doing nothing?
What is the cost of being wrong and triggering an ice age after destroying the economies of the world?

Bob Osaka
5 / 5 (6) Jun 13, 2014
What is it that you fear?

Totalitarian socialists like Bob Osaka and the others here.
Sorry, didn't mean to scare you.
is it your suggestion that we do nothing

We do what humans have done for thousands of years, adapt.

Why do socialists AGWites fear change?
Yes, I can see your need to adapt. Please do.
Weigh the cost of doing nothing and being wrong against the cost of doing something and being correct.


Another false assumption typical of AGWites. How is adaptation doing nothing?
What is the cost of being wrong and triggering an ice age after destroying the economies of the world?

Let me get this straight. Anthropological Global Warming is not possible but somehow triggering a n ice age is?

AGW has sprung for our ignorant, arrogant ways and deontological ethics. We didn't mean for it to happen.

There is nothing we can do to prevent the next ice age. Unless you have a suggestion to alter the Milankovitch cycle.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jun 13, 2014
There is nothing we can do to prevent the next ice age.


Well, actually we could, or at least moderate it. The last one was six degrees lower than current temperatures (roughly and assuming I read the graph correctly). We are talking about a 1.5-3 degree rise conservatively with AGW...correct?

We can either significantly affect climate or we can't. It can't be both ways.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2014
We do what humans have done for thousands of years, adapt.

Why do socialists AGWites fear change?

ryggy....
And what do humans have beyond all other creatures on earth?
Err... that would be intelligence, wouldn't it?

So given we are no longer primitive and can just up-sticks when the change comes at us unknown. Then that intelligence would suggest that we use our intelligence to .....
Observe/investigate/apply empirical science (unarguable - sorry) and compute. To give us a plausible time scale in which to act (can only be a range at present). Then make what sensible changes we can to mitigate cost and disruption for our descendants.
Yet you say we sit on our arses and do nothing proactive at all - just react. Fan f*** tastic- Is that your interpretation of adaption?
Sorry, my friend, my idea of adaption for modern mankind is to use the grey matter.
Why cant you?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 13, 2014
Cont...

You mistake fear for what is in fact sensible consideration and weighing of effects.
Ie primitive vs modern man.

Sorry baby, you truly are a Neanderthal aren't you (no question mark).
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Jun 13, 2014
^
That...a thousand times that...

We don't have to quadruple the melanin in our skins and triple our sweat glands....

We actually get to see a problem and devise a solution before it smacks the crap out of us. THAT is how humans adapt and that is why we are in the position we occupy in the scheme of things on the planet.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
So rygg,

If you took all the people who think AGW is real, and their solution was to build 4th generation passively safe nuclear power plants with a thorium fuel cycle, and or fast breeder reactors and reprocess the fuel. To take all the money we're currently spending on carbon taxes and regulating the existing gas, coal, and oil industries and pour it into developing better solar power and better batteries. Not one new regulation proposed and not one new mandate or tax break for people who act the way the federal government thinks they ought....

Would you have any objection to that?

Yes. It's still a socialism.
But nuclear energy and free markets was NOT the solution of AGWites was it?
IPCC/socialism was the knee jerk response.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
We actually get to see a problem and devise a solution before it smacks the crap out of us. THAT is how humans adapt and that is why we are in the position we occupy in the scheme of things on the planet.


Unless that 'solution' is devised by 'the central planners' who think they know best, and forced upon the world.
Or a local govt, like the Niagra school board needs land, forces Hooker Chemical to sell a toxic waste dump so the property can be developed to increase the size and power of the govt.
Or the federal govt pays people to rebuild in flood zones, after repeatedly being flooded along rivers and coastlines.
Or the federal govt's control of the Mississippi River, and local govt corruption, destroys New Orleans.
Given the track record of govt, why should they be trusted to solve any problem?
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
Given the track record of govt, why should they be trusted to solve any problem?

We've been here before - many times. But just for the record, if no form of government, in your view, can be relied upon to solve a problem .....just what can then?

How do you propose to solve any problem without a collection of affected citizens getting together and agreeing on a solution?

Especially one that is world-wide.

I have maintained to you many times that what you speak of, where it does exist, is merely human nature .... which we have to battle through in order to get where we want. "we" being the majority voiced by their representatives.

Just simple common-sense.
But then again, we know you don't do common-sense or rationalisation via probability.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
We've been here before - many times

So you can't think of any effective top down govt solutions either.

How do you propose to solve any problem without a collection of affected citizens getting together and agreeing on a solution?


Bottom up, not top down.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
"Trillions of dollars ($4.335 Trillion) and millions of lost jobs (19 million) later we get what?

Does the Political Industrial Complex think we are that stupid we would buy this Snake Oil?

Worse – are we as a people so stupid we will buy this Snake Oil?

Does this compute or not?

(100,000′s of Jobs + Billions of Taxpayer $'s) x 85 years = 0.018° C

Think of what we could do with all that effort applied to something important and real."
http://strata-sph...es/20354
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
"The Bee reported that cap-and-trade auctions could bring in up to $1 billion in 2014-15. The bullet train project, which will cost the state at least $68 billion, is scheduled to begin funding in 2015-2016."
http://www.breitb...-Revenue

"The Brown administration is preparing a proposal to limit environmental challenges to California's high-speed rail project, heightening legal standards under which a court could block construction."
"America wasn't founded to apply the rule of law equally to everyone! It exists to give elected officials like Jerry Brown the power to build massively expensive 19th-century transportation solutions during a chronic debt crisis at the state and national level, while breaking the same laws he wants to enforce against everyone else. Some animals truly are more equal than others on the farm."
http://hotair.com...vironmen
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
The govt can be trusted?

"House Committee on Ways and Means chairman Dave Camp revealed today that he has been informed by the IRS that Lois Lerner's emails between Jan. 2009 and April 2011 have been lost "due to a supposed computer crash." The IRS says the crash destroyed all of Lerner's emails to outside agencies such as, for instance, the White House. Emails sent within the IRS are unaffected."
http://www.breitb...Are-Gone
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
We've been here before - many times

So you can't think of any effective top down govt solutions either.

How do you propose to solve any problem without a collection of affected citizens getting together and agreeing on a solution?


Bottom up, not top down.


And how does your "bottom up" work pray?

Given that the bottom does not have access to expert opinion, that is not fractured/distorted by ideology/iognorance/stupidity/isolationism. Vis yourself.
It is beyond stupid to do it that way. It's merely mob rule.

And besides, the bottom has to be organised, ie speak to each other and the "above". And (your imaginary Friend) forbid .... that's just "Socialism".
FFS

Decisions have to be made at the top as that is where the "buck" stops. It cant stop at the f**ing beginning.

You live in cloud-cuckoo land my friend, coupled with muddled thinking.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
Given that the bottom does not have access to expert opinion,

Why not?
And what's so great about 'expert opinion'?
If an expert's opinion had value, it would be applied, in a free market, to solving problems from the bottom up where people would be persuaded, not coerced, as to the value of the opinion.
When 'expert opinion' has no value, the 'expert' only needs to convince ignorant politicians who then pass laws to use violence to 'persuade'.
'Expert' opinion drove many changes in the marketing of fats in food, but now, that opinion has now been demonstrated to be flawed for 40 years.
So much for 'experts'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
"A key difference between experts in the private sector and experts in the government sector is that the latter have monopoly power, ultimately backed by force. The power of government experts is concentrated and unchecked (or at best checked very poorly), whereas the power of experts in the private sector is constrained by competition and checked by choice. Private organizations have to satisfy the needs of their constituents in order to survive. Ultimately, private experts have to respect the dignity of the individual, because the individual has the freedom to ignore the expert."
http://www.cato.o...-failure
Govt 'experts' picked Fisker Auto for electric cars.
Tesla does benefit from subsidy, but they are not bankrupt, yet.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
"knowledge that is important in the economy is dispersed. Consumers understand their own wants and business managers understand their technological opportunities and constraints to a greater degree than they can articulate and to a far greater degree than experts can understand and absorb.

When knowledge is dispersed but power is concentrated, I call this the knowledgepower discrepancy. Such discrepancies can arise in large firms, where CEOs can fail to appreciate the significance of what is known by some of their subordinates. I would view the mistakes made by AIG, BP, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and other well-known companies as illustrations of this knowledge-power discrepancy in practice.

With government experts, the knowledge- power discrepancy is particularly acute."
" the way to address the knowledge- power discrepancy is to reduce the concentration of power. "
http://www.cato.o...-failure
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
"The EU's energy commissioner has threatened politicians and journalists who campaign against his eco-policies, accusing them of stirring "anti-EU sentiment" and warning them that their opposition to his EU energy-savings directives will "not be taken lightly.""
http://www.breitb...-dissent
Is Günther Oettinger, a German career politician, an energy expert?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
'Experts' will run Argentina:

"On Tuesday, President of Argentina Cristina Kirchner appointed the philosopher and ruling-party supporter Ricardo Forster as head of the Secretariat for Strategic Coordination of National Thought, an entity that will fall under the purview of the recently created Ministry of Culture."
"The intellectual said he agreed with the current government's agenda. "I think the state is key to the development of a society's cultural life," he said."
http://panampost....f-truth/
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
Given that the bottom does not have access to expert opinion,

Why not?
And what's so great about 'expert opinion'?
If an expert's opinion had value, it would be applied, in a free market, to solving problems from the bottom up where people would be persuaded, not coerced, as to the value of the opinion.
When 'expert opinion' has no value, the 'expert' only needs to convince ignorant politicians who then pass laws to use violence to 'persuade'.
'Expert' opinion drove many changes in the marketing of fats in food, but now, that opinion has now been demonstrated to be flawed for 40 years.
So much for 'experts'.


Please note WHAT I said ryggy.....

"Given that the bottom does not have access to expert opinion, that is not fractured/distorted by ideology/iognorance/stupidity/isolationism. Vis yourself."

Get it ??
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
BTW ryggy ....

I'm now reporting every one of your off-topic spamming, driveling, quote laden and ideological posts pertaining to "socialism" as it is entirely off-topic on this science site.

I urge all other like minds to do the same.
I've lost patience, and will no longer indulge you.
Whether (any) mods seem things the same way is another matter.

You have serious mental problems my friend.

And I prefer not to witness your slow-motion car-crash on here any longer.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
"When certain price and risk models came into widespread use, they led many players to place the same kinds of bets, the authors continue. The market thus lost the benefit of having many participants, since there was no longer a variety of views offsetting one another. The same effect, the authors say, occurs if one player becomes dominant in one aspect of the market. The problem is exacerbated by the "control illusion," an unjustified confidence based on the model's apparent mathematical precision, the authors say. This problem is especially acute among people who use models they have not developed themselves, as they may be unaware of the models' flaws, like reliance on uncertain assumptions."
http://knowledge....-crisis/

Climate models fit into this category.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2014
Given that the bottom does not have access to expert opinion, that is not fractured/distorted by ideology/iognorance/stupidity/isolationism.


Only 'the top' has access to 'expert opinion' that is not distorted?

I see NO evidence of this as 'the top' has more incentive to use force to command the 'expert opinion' it desires.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
"When certain price and risk models came into widespread use, they led many players to place the same kinds of bets, the authors continue. The market thus lost the benefit of having many participants, since there was no longer a variety of views offsetting one another. The same effect, the authors say, occurs if one player becomes dominant in one aspect of the market. The problem is exacerbated by the "control illusion," an unjustified confidence based on the model's apparent mathematical precision, the authors say. This problem is especially acute among people who use models they have not developed themselves, as they may be unaware of the models' flaws, like reliance on uncertain assumptions."
http://knowledge....-crisis/

Climate models fit into this category.

And that's been reported.

You're a rabid zealot and completely anti-science.
Irrational and stupid.
A complete waste of space on this site.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 14, 2014
Now runny is behaving true to socialist form by demanding this site force all to conform to the 'expert's opinion'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 14, 2014
I bet runny does not report the vulgar language, insults and intimidation aimed at those who disagree with runny and the 'expert's opinion'.

Economy is an emergent system, so is climate.
Economic models fail for the same reasons climate models fail, the users, and the modelers don't know, and can't know the limits.
But rummy trusts these 'experts'?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
"Hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the expensive climate modelling enterprise has all but destroyed governmental funding of research into natural sources of climate change. For years the modelers have maintained that there is no such thing as natural climate change…yet they now, ironically, have to invoke natural climate forces to explain why surface warming has essentially stopped in the last 15 years!"
http://www.drroys...r-means/
Rummy ignores this expert, why?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2014
I bet runny does not report the vulgar language, insults and intimidation aimed at those who disagree with runny and the 'expert's opinion'.

Economy is an emergent system, so is climate.
Economic models fail for the same reasons climate models fail, the users, and the modelers don't know, and can't know the limits.
But rummy trusts these 'experts'?

Mr ryggy:
You, as usual, talk in political/ideological terms.
Whatever your thoughts re that prism onto climate science, it is irrelevant on this site, and you will no longer have my indulgence.
Whether the powers that be on this site see things my way is another matter.... but remember a certain Nik_from_NYC was banned for multiple spamming.

BTW: he now is where he belongs - the really seriously far gone gang on WUWT
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
So rummy must approve of all insults and vulgarity spewing from many others here, as long as he agrees with them.

Rummy disagrees that climate is an emergent system?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2014
So rummy must approve of all insults and vulgarity spewing from many others here, as long as he agrees with them.

Rummy disagrees that climate is an emergent system?

Any insults are self inflicted my friend.
Talk sensibly and you will be treated sensibly
You are a political animal, and all science goes via that filter through your brain.
There are thousands of intelligent and knowledgeable scientists out there doing a work-a-day with nothing but diligence and you trash their work because it does not fit your world-view, and/or because the people we vote in to do our (democratic) bidding are not doing yours.
Ah diddums.
Grow up and go annoy some children on your street instead of us.

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 14, 2014
Now runny is behaving true to socialist form by demanding this site force all to conform to the 'expert's opinion'
@retarded Rygg
NO... Runrig is going to request that the SITE COMPLY with its stated comment posting guidelines to which you ignore and violate regularly, which would be the same thing as asking someone to comply with a contractual obligation for the sake of mutual agreement and to facilitate the site's stated purpose, which is to promote SCIENCE, not stupidity.

for the site to IGNORE Runrig or others who REPORT you would be SOCIALIST or worse, COMMUNIST (which is what you more often refer to and describe)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2014
If this site complied with it's policy, Stump, Caliban and many others would be banned for being offensive.
Everything I post is related to topic of the article or to challenge the comments made by others.
The FIRST part of the FIRST sentence of this article: "Substantial, fundamental changes in the world economy are required...".

Instead of addressing the issue of the failure of socialist AGW policies, which this article discusses, the socialists here refuse to discuss socialism and demand I shut up and try to have this site ban me?
Why does pointing out the socialism of AGWism make so many uncomfortable?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Jun 14, 2014
There are thousands of intelligent and knowledgeable scientists out there doing a work-a-day with nothing but diligence and you trash their work because it does not fit your world-view,


Like a good 'progressive', rummy seem to think that just because someone tries real hard and plays 'the game', they deserve a trophy for participation.
Many scientists, who do NOT receive massive govt funding to promote AGWism, stick their professional necks out, challenge the 'consensus' and are ridiculed by the likes of rummy because they don't support rummy's world view.
Why don't they deserve respect?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2014
........Many scientists, ...., stick their professional necks out, challenge the 'consensus' and are ridiculed by the likes of rummy because they don't support rummy's world view.
Why don't they deserve respect?


Because they're wrong.
That's life sunshine. Like Pons & Fleishman and CF decades ago - there is bad science done. You know, like one fake Rembrandt doesn't make em all fake.
Using a modicum of common sense brings most people to the realisation that there will never be 100% equanimity in anything, it's just human nature. You require 100% - 97% isn't good enough.
Your anti-socialist (via a definition that would make Lenin question his sanity) rants needs to stop on here.
Go find a TP Blog - or WUWT, you'll be keeping Nik company and many other bizarre D-K infected, right-wing zealots.
If your intention is just to make a noise, then you are succeeding. You're not, even remotely progressing your "cause" on here.
We'll see if the Mods are as fed-up of you as I am.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2014
If this site complied with it's policy, Stump, Caliban and many others would be banned for being offensive.
Everything I post is related to topic of the article or to challenge the comments made by others.
The FIRST part of the FIRST sentence of this article: "Substantial, fundamental changes in the world economy are required...".

Instead of addressing the issue of the failure of socialist AGW policies, which this article discusses, the socialists here refuse to discuss socialism and demand I shut up and try to have this site ban me?
Why does pointing out the socialism of AGWism make so many uncomfortable?

Your "abuse" is a symptom, not a cause. You come first.
Talk science and not politics, and a particularly offensive version at that.

POLICIES ARE NOT SCIENCE.

This is a science site FFS

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 15, 2014
Because they're wrong.

The GCM predictions are doing quite a poor job of matching observations. In real science, the theory must be wrong when the data doesn't match predictions.

This is a science site

This article is NOT about science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 15, 2014
Hey ryggy

This is what 'outgrowing and overrunning' looks like

"The United States on Sunday condemned a militant group's claim of killing 1,700 Iraqi soldiers... The claim by the Al Qaeda splinter group — the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS — that it had killed Shiite Muslim air force recruits in Tikrit en masse "is a horrifying and a true depiction of the bloodlust that these terrorists represent," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said"

"Kill them all -- old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. 7 "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" Ezek9

-Aren't you ashamed?
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 15, 2014
Because they're wrong.

The GCM predictions are doing quite a poor job of matching observations. In real science, the theory must be wrong when the data doesn't match predictions.

This is a science site

This article is NOT about science.


Rygg2: Please give me examples of the "predictions" that do not match observations. Help me understand why the theory must be wrong.

Let me help you out. The surface temperatures in some locations are down by about 2 standard deviations from the mean of the models.

Now, please help me understand how that points to a wrong theory.

The reason I say you are wrong is that the models are designed to reflect heat transfer and do not have the resolution to model weather. However, doing a heat balance including the oceans they seem to be right on and possibly low. Please point me to peer reviewed information that shows my interpretation is wrong. Or, is it all a socialist plot to take your money?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
The surface temperatures in some locations are down by about 2 standard deviations from the mean of the models.


You keep telling us that climate must be judged on time scales >30 years.
Has any GCM been validated to be correct after 30 years?

There are many critics of GCMs, all with PhDs in fields related to climate science, who are attacked and ridiculed by AGWites. This is not the way of science.

The AGWite solution was to form a govt committee, IPCC, and use socialism policies, wealth redistribution, to 'save the planet'.

Where is the science in this article?
The authors imply MORE socialist policies must be implemented to 'save the planet' without addressing the failures of the current socialist policies.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
RyggBaby is back and he is, once again, trying to deflect the question that was put to him. You said:

The GCM predictions are doing quite a poor job of matching observations. In real science, the theory must be wrong when the data doesn't match predictions.


And I asked for you to put-up or shut up about the change in heat content of the earth. That is what the models are for and that is what the theory is about. So, please show us you have something other than the ability to type and make things up. Show us peer reviewed papers that show the earth has not had an imbalance in the heat budget with the heat content rising year-on-year. Sure the system with the least heat capacity on the planet (the atmosphere) is the one with the most variability, but measurements have shown that the amount of heat absorbed into the oceans (the most heat capacity) has been continuing and ice is melting (latent heat change). Just for once, try to answer something with facts.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
Rygg2 the whiner said:
There are many critics of GCMs, all with PhDs in fields related to climate science, who are attacked and ridiculed by AGWites. This is not the way of science.


I guess you don't work with PhDs. If you did, you would find there are good ones and bad ones. It is interesting that less than 3% of the scientists are the butt of jokes. The secret that you just can't quite wrap your one brain cell around is that those 3% just don't have the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs - an old military term) needed to check the math on their own. Not one of them, that I am aware of, has built their own 3D model. All they have to do is to purchase Fluent and start programming. Oh, wait, they can't do that because they don't have the KSAs to be able to. So, they have hunches and can't test them. Instead they, like you, wave their hands and conjure up some verbiage that people like you eat up like candy. Anything to help your view of the Socialist plot.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
deflect the question

No, you are deflecting the failure of GCMs, or at least that one must wait 10 or 15 more years to determine IF the theory behind GCMs is valid.

imbalance in the heat budget

There can be NO imbalance.
BTW, do you know ALL the sources of energy the generate heat on the earth? Just recently it was noted that Antarctic glaciers are melting from geothermal heat.
If you recall, I have been challenging the silly assumption that Antarctic glaciers were melting from atmospheric heat being conducted through thousands of meters of ice to melt enough water that decreases friction creating rivers of ice. The most logical source of that heat would be from below.
How well do GCMs account for geothermal heat?
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
RyggIdiot said:
You keep telling us that climate must be judged on time scales >30 years.
Has any GCM been validated to be correct after 30 years?


The question should be: Have any of these models been shown to be invalid? That is how you judge everything in science. You have to show that the model fails. Those models are falsifiable and there have been hundreds of papers written about attempts to falsify them. Guess what? They have not been falsified, and they are getting better all the time. The theory of global warming has not been falsified (unless you are claiming they have). Show me where they are falsified. Show me where the theory has been proven wrong. Show me the fallacious heat balance.

Get up off your lazy ass and show us where the models fail and the theory is proven wrong. This is your chance to shine Mama's boy. It should be simple for someone as sharp as you think you are. Just prove the theory wrong for us. Falsify it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
"As it is now the matter of uncertainty of the projections is handled in an absurd way by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC uses a rediculous number of projections created by various groups. At one time it was 15 and later 22. These are rediculous numbers. If climate forecasting were a hard science then it would be easy to choose the best one or the best few and forget the rest. But it is not a hard science and the models have not been validated by backcasting so the IPCC is stuck with a whole herd of projections. The IPCC then reports the extremes from the models and treats this as though it represents an objective measure of the uncertainty of the projections. At least it sounds scientific but it is in fact bogus. Not all of the climate models are unvalidated. A few performed some version of the backcasting test and they were found to be invalidated. "
http://www.sjsu.e.../CMU.htm
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
"For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a 'hiatus' in global warming. By contrast, estimates of expected warming in the first several decades of 21st century made by the IPCC AR4 were 0.2C/decade. This talk summarizes the recent CMIP5 climate model simulation results and comparisons with observational data. The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2\% confidence level. "
http://meetings.a...t/210790
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
RyggDummy wrote:
There can be NO imbalance.


Do you understand heat transfer? Net heat can only flow from hot to cold.

Notice I used the term "net." Do you understand why?

BTW, do you know ALL the sources of energy the generate heat on the earth? Just recently it was noted that Antarctic glaciers are melting from geothermal heat.


No, if you read the article, geothermal heat was "contributing" to the melting. If you read the article you would know that they have always accounted for the heat under the glaciers, they just did a beter job of measuring the locations and amount. So, once again you are lying or you just couldn't understand what they wrote. I'm betting on the later. You also don't understand that the contribution from all effects is not well modeled yet. So, the fraction from geothermal could go up or down. Get your act together you moron. Answer the question and stop deflecting the issue. Where has the theory been falsified?

thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
Rygg the desperate said:
The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2\% confidence level. "
http://meetings.a...t/210790


ROFL, Rygg tosses a hail Mary (or hail Judith in this case) to try to say that Curry's stadium wave falsifies AGW. Please show us how this invalidates the theory of AGW? I really want to see you try to piece that together. How has this falsified anything when this is speculation this point - and does not address heat in the oceans (other than with hand waving about the PDO and how it might move things about). The bottom line is that the heat balance shows that the earth is still heating. Can you twist that around to show how a heating earth falsifies the theory of AGW? I am waiting.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
"As it is now the matter of uncertainty of the projections is handled in an absurd way by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC uses a rediculous number of projections created by various groups. At one time it was 15 and later 22. These are rediculous numbers. If climate forecasting were a hard science then it would be easy to choose the best one or the best few and forget the rest.


Now you are quoting from a web site. Apparently one that does not understand statistics or modeling. How do I know that? Because the use of hundreds or thousands of models is common practice for modeling a complex system with uncertainty in the initial conditions. The approach is typical for any systems that are sensitive to initial conditions. For the goofball on the web site to not understand that is embarrassing for him. Look up stochastic modeling and look for an ensemble of solutions as an approach to understanding behavior of these complex systems.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2014
I'm going to head to bed after pulling an all nighter (with breaks to be amused by Rygg2 and offended by Cantdrive). I hope someone else takes over the roll of helping Rygg2 to understand how really dumb he is (note I did not use ignorant because he is not capable of learning and that means he is dumb).

I am sure he will play the "socialist" card at some time so please wear your pink shirt to blend in.

Please note that he could not pull any examples of falsificaiton of the theory of AGW out of his orifice even though he thinks they failed. Maybe we should just take his word for it since he is so close to Cantdrive.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
Once again, thermo doesn't address the crux of AGWism, GCMs, and their inability to predict or retrodict, or predict climate.
Instead, he makes excuses for their failure.
Yes, modeling emergent systems is quite difficult. Yet AGWites assert GCMs can predict the climate in 30 years?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2014
Hey ryggy

At least you can take comfort in knowing that soon it will be so hot in the Middle East that even bloodthirsty religionists will not be able to live there. Only in Dubai in their huge climate-controlled megastructures.

But by then they will have overrun us like the cromags did the neanderthals. Oh well.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
Once again, thermo doesn't address the crux of AGWism, GCMs, and their inability to predict or retrodict, or predict climate.
Instead, he makes excuses for their failure.
..... Yet AGWites assert GCMs can predict the climate in 30 years?


He has, as I have, many times on here, but still, like the proverbial goldfish swimming around a bowl, you forget you were there before.
No No NO f**^^ing NO.
GCM's DO NOT "predict the climate in 30 years"
Nothing can.
All they do is give error bounds for global temps, ie a range over present.
They are run over various scenarios relating to CO2 emmissions.
They do not predict heat stored in the Oceans (>90% of the total), nor an exact slope

They CANNOT predict lulls/rises in the ave temp trend, because we do not know the periodicity of ocean current cycles such as PDO/ENSO and the AMO. The former largely being responsible for the "lull". Only mean conditions can be included for these cycles and
30 yrs should see them go through a least one.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
Once again, thermo doesn't address the crux of AGWism
@rygtard
Ok... since you DONT get it... THERMO was asking you to
pull any examples of falsificaiton of the theory of AGW
to which you simply responded by changing the subject and deflecting away from the point. Why should anyone answer YOU when you never answer anyone else?
There is no conspiracy here -other than to maybe point out that you are an idiot and ignoring empirical data as well as the fact that you CANNOT COMPREHEND THE ACTUAL SCIENCE... you throw out quotes because you think you can deflect away from the issue
GIVE HARD SCIENCE
GIVE HARD INFO ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS
I am with Runrig other comment on this one... you need to be reported and deleted since you are NOT going to even TRY to converse and since all you do is deflect back to your socialist ad hominem.

YOU OFFER NOTHING TO THE SITE EXCEPT IDIOCY AND VERBAL ASSAULTS CALLING PEOPLE SOCIALIST (which what you really mean is Communist)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2014
Nothing can.

Then AGWism 'the planet is doomed' is BS.

CANNOT COMPREHEND THE ACTUAL SCIENCE..

The only 'science' AGWism has are GCMs, which rummy said can't predict climate 30 years out.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2014
"Clearly, the best climate models of the present day are still not up to doing what we really need them to do to be of much service. In fact, they could potentially be leading us in a direction we may soon find to actually be detrimental to the well-being of the biosphere, including ourselves."
http://www.nipccr...3a2.html
Vietvet
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2014
"Clearly, the best climate models of the present day are still not up to doing what we really need them to do to be of much service. In fact, they could potentially be leading us in a direction we may soon find to actually be detrimental to the well-being of the biosphere, including ourselves."
http://www.nipccr...3a2.html


WARNING! The link above was red flagged by WOT.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014

The only 'science' AGWism has are GCMs, which rummy said can't predict climate 30 years out.


Why on Earth would you expect anything to predict climate 30 years out.
No seriously, why?

Why do you think it is necessary to predict climate 30 years out?

You really haven't the faintest, have you?

You use the impossibility of doing something as evidence that it's not credible.
Seriously, seriously mentally deficient thinking there my friend.

Come on, try harder, the neutrals on here aren't as stupid as you.

Also ... err - do try looking back through the articles that you have contributed your trolling comments to on here. And remind yourself that the "only science AGWism has are GCM's" is very far from the truth.

Like I said - Goldfish swimming around a bowl.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2014
Rygg2: I'm back to make sure you have not forgotten your claim that the theory of AGW has been falsified. Please give us the reference or just continue to rant. It seems to me you are pretty good at ranting, but lousy at understanding the principles of AGW. Prove me wrong. Show me the references that prove AGW to be wrong. Is it time for you to change the subject again or is it time for you to just drop out like Alche?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
The only 'science' AGWism has are GCM
@rygtard
and this comment ONLY PROVES BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT that YOU HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT SCIENCE, THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE CLIMATE AND WARMING, and WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

Thanks for proving that you know less about global climate than my pet fish... and even less about any other science.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2014
Why on Earth would you expect anything to predict climate 30 years out.
No seriously, why?

I don't.
AGWites do.
How else can they justify their socialist policies to 'save the planet'?
the theory of AGW has been falsified.

The theory of AGWism IS a climate model that to be falsified requires decades of data. Science is not a court of law where a theory is proposed and is accepted until falsified. Theories need to stand continuous falsification tests by all. Especially by those who developed the theory.
Has any one climate model explained observations from the past several hundred years to the present?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
the neutrals

Who are 'the neutrals'?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2014
"The extra melt caused by subglacial volcanoes could lubricate the ice sheet from beneath, hastening its flow toward the sea, Schroeder said. To understand how much the volcanic melt contributes to this flow — and what that means for the future of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet— glaciologists and climate scientists will have to include the new, finer-grained findings in their models. Schroeder and his colleagues also plan to expand their study to other glaciers in the region."
http://news.disco...6091.htm
If this is not included in THE MODEL, then THE MODEL has been falsified.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Jun 16, 2014
And Rygg2 said:
How else can they justify their socialist policies to 'save the planet'?


Of course it is a socialist plot to steal his money. Have you forgotten you are supposed to tell us how AGW has been falsified? You made the bold statement so lets see the bold proof. If you can prove it the big bad socialists might not steal your lunch money.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
tell us how AGW has been falsified?

I just did.
THE MODEL was just falsified with new data from Antarctica that was not included in THE MODEL.
Just as Ken Lay realized that AGWism was a opportunity for Enron to corner the market on carbon credits and natural gas, the watermelons (red-communist- on the inside, green on the outside) realized they could leverage AGWism to push their agenda. Hence the creation of the IPCC, a political organization to force policy compliance.
"United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model."
http://dailycalle...warming/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
"Modern environmentalism and its "global warming dogma" has replaced communism as the costliest, anti-democratic mistake of our time. That was the major theme of Czech President Vaclav Klaus's keynote address to the inaugural meeting of the UK-based Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) in London, October 19. "
Klaus insisted the climate debate is no longer about "scientific discourse" – the hypothesis for which "is weak" – but has become a "public policy debate about man and society". For Klaus, "it is always wrong to pick a simple, attractive, perhaps appealing scientific hypothesis, especially when it is not sufficiently tested…and to base ambitious, radical and far-reaching policies on it." - See more at: http://www.energy...dqC.dpuf
Klaus knows all about communism.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Jun 16, 2014
"Klaus said he was speaking as someone who himself had worked for years with computer modelling programmes, the chief element that convinces many we face impending doom. Klaus notes, in his experience, computer models simply cannot achieve any serious contribution "computer models just don't work that way".

Klaus also notes what he sees as the deeply anti-intellectual nature of those who "want to save the Planet" by gaining power over all our lives. "For these people," said Klaus, "the sophisticated economic reasoning we offer is irrelevant." He is amazed at how it has proved possible "that so many politicians, their huge bureaucracies, important groups in the scientific establishment, an important segment of business people and almost all journalists" have bought into climate alarmist theory."
- See more at: http://www.energy...dqC.dpuf
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Jun 16, 2014
Rygg2 said:
If this is not included in THE MODEL, then THE MODEL has been falsified.


THE MODEL was just falsified with new data from Antarctica that was not included in THE MODEL.


ROFL If Rygg really thinks that then he is even more of a fool than we have been thinking. Rygg, you have not said anything about AGW being falsified, only about the depths of your misunderstanding of how modeling works.

Please Runrig, tell us something to help stop my laughing. TCS, this is one of the best examples of ignorance I have ever seen. And, he doesn't even understand why we are all probably spitting coffee out our noses. I really can't stop laughing.

I bet he gives his car away when the dome light burns out.

I bet he changes jobs when his shoes get dirty. (oh, I forgot he probably doesn't have a job and lives in his mama's basement). If only he was closer I could make all kinds of money taking his lunch money - and eating his lunch. Continued
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jun 16, 2014
The Rygg2 show continued:

This thread must be kept for posterity.

Just to keep things going, (and I am still crying with laughter), I need to go back to the original question. I asked Rygg2 why he though that AGW had been falsified. He came back with why he thought all of the general circulation models had been falsified. I have had tears of laughter streaming down my face ever since. I have a friend over and they were asking if I was watching porn. In a way, I guess I am since the things Rygg2 has said should never be shown in public - but we will show them.

I assume that Rygg2 figures that they should model the fish in the ocean or the model has been falsified. Or, maybe we need to model butterflies in the forests or the model has been falsified. Maybe we need to model each person on earth or the model is falsified. Or maybe we need to model each bird in the sky or the model will be falsified. Oh, I have to stop. This is too much for an old man...
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Jun 17, 2014
Rygg2 said:
If this is not included in THE MODEL, then THE MODEL has been falsified.


THE MODEL was just falsified with new data from Antarctica that was not included in THE MODEL.


ROFL If Rygg really thinks that then he is even more of a fool than we have been thinking. Rygg, you have not said anything about AGW being falsified, only about the depths of your misunderstanding of how modeling works.

Please Runrig, tell us something to help stop my laughing. TCS, this is one of the best examples of ignorance I have ever seen. And, he doesn't even understand why we are all probably spitting coffee out our noses. I really can't stop laughing.

......

Do you know?
In a way it would be a loss to see him banned (there are several recent posts on here I've reported) ... and will continue to do so if they are politically biased.
As, in his favour, he is not unpleasant (Uba). It's a bit like indulging a small petulant child, who cannot help being naughty.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Jun 17, 2014
Runny, you are right. We don't want him thrown off the site because he is really funny (just not on purpose). Cantdrive we can lose any time and no one will miss him. Rggy has amusement value.