Climate change falsehood

[michael pierzga]

Well worth a read

http://articles.marketwatch.com/201...51356_1_capitalism-market-triumphalism-values


“Without being fully aware of the shift, Americans have drifted from having a market economy to becoming a market society ... where almost everything is up for sale ... a way of life where market values seep into almost every sphere of life and sometimes crowd out or corrode important values, non-market values.”

" for-profit schools, hospitals, prisons ... outsourcing war to private contractors ... police forces by private guards “almost twice the number of public police officers” ... drug “companies aggressive marketing of prescription drugs directly to consumers, a practice ... prohibited in most other countries.”

 

[kach22i]

Well worth a read......

Thank you for the read.

 

[Petros]

the article only shows the author's limited understanding of how a market is supposed to work. to claim that capitalism has failed most countries indicates to me that there was a failure to understand true free market capitalism.

for free markets to work properly you need three things in place: multiple producers, consumers who can freely move from one producer to another, and market information on where to find alternative producers. Without these things you do not have free markets, but monopolies, oligarchies, or cartels controlling the flow of goods and services.

The fatal flaw is that in a comparative market place, the better/stronger producers push out (or buy out) their competition. So it tends toward monopoly, and than you no longer have a free market. this means there has to be a strong government to prevent monopolies in all markets. This gets subverted when the monopolies collude with the government to give them monopolies by law, and prevent meaningful competition. So the failure is a failure of government.

Also, free markets can only work in a moral environment, meaning that the government needs to represent the morals of the population, and must enforce those morals on both the producers and the consumers. So again if there is a failure of markets, it is a failure of governments to regulate to provide for a fair and competitive market place. And pollution laws is one of the issues that governments much enforce since there is no free market force to prevent pollution. So again when large deep pocket producers get laws passed to favor their business, than again the failure is in government to look out for the populations best interests. And if that government is a democratic form of government, it is a failure of the voters to understand what their elected official is doing to us.

It is surprising to me how many authors that write about economics fail to grasp these very basic principle of free market capitalism, and bash it for what it is not, and decry its so-called failures when there was no true free market to begin with.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

BUSINESS INSIDER | Almost All Scientists Agree That Humans Are Causing Climate Change

May 16, 2013 | A survey of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals has found 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity.

Authors of the survey, published on Thursday in the journal Environmental Research Letters, said the finding of near unanimity provided a powerful rebuttal to climate contrarians who insist the science of climate change remains unsettled.

The survey considered the work of some 29,000 scientists published in 11,994 academic papers. Of the 4,000-plus papers that took a position on the causes of climate change only 0.7% or 83 of those thousands of academic articles, disputed the scientific consensus that climate change is the result of human activity, with the view of the remaining 2.2% unclear…

Public opinion continues to lag behind the science. Though a majority of Americans accept the climate is changing, just 42% believed human activity was the main driver, in a poll conducted by the Pew Research Centre last October…

 

[micah719]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...n-32-6-of-scientific-papers-that-endorse-agw/

Another look at the numbers deflates the warmist position. Your trousers are burning.

 

[Petros]

BUSINESS INSIDER | Almost All Scientists Agree That Humans Are Causing Climate Change

here is a quote direly from the study cited:

"After limiting the selection to peer-reviewed climate science, the study considered 11 994 papers written by 29 083 authors in 1980 different scientific journals.....

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Co-author of the study Mark Richardson, from the University of Reading, said: "We want our scientists to answer questions for us, and there are lots of exciting questions in climate science. One of them is: are we causing global warming? We found over 4000 studies written by 10 000 scientists that stated a position on this, and 97 per cent said that recent warming is mostly man made.”


So can someone who is smarter than me explain how out of the 11,994 papers, only 32.6 percent endorsed AGW, Yet for this report, they selected and report on only those 4000 studies (from the 32.6 percent) that supported AGW as having a 97 percent agreement?

when is 32.6 percent equal to 97 percent agreement?

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...n-32-6-of-scientific-papers-that-endorse-agw/

Another look at the numbers deflates the warmist position. Your trousers are burning.

I agree, the news article didn't report the research as clearly as it might have. Here's the abstract from the report itself:

Abstract
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

That 66.4% of papers expressed no position on the cause of AGW might seem a very strong blow to their being a consensus of AGW, but I could imagine that much of that "neutral" research could have been studying the results of Climate Change, and not the cause of Climate Change.

 

[Herr Kaleun]

Well, well, well, I have just joined BD.n, I joined because I wish to learn and share my interests in boat/vessel design. But my first read on this forum was about Climate Change;the pros and cons thereof... Being an environmentalist and amature scientist/philosopher, this is a topic that happens to be close to my heart;specifically the debate. I will not direct my comments at individuals [so pathetic in indulgence and too personal], more at the broad range of thoughts on this controversial topic.

I write this approximately four days after we are informed that current CO2 levels have reached an all time high since records began. The trend has been modelled against historic/geological and hydro-chronological data and thus is believed that CO2 levels are far higher than would have naturally have occurred; dinosaurs did not use internal combustion engines...

I use to concede that we 'humankind' being a natural product of evolution upon Earth were following our instinct and that everything we did was justified under this pseudo-maxim. Using the idiom "...You have to break a few eggs when making an omelette", I do concede that humankind has to go through these unnatural developments [...the wars, industrial revolution, social revolution etc... ad nauseum]in order to evolve. However, what has evolved in human terms is our mental development - and that has merely taken 200k years at a push. Our mental 'evolution' reached exponential proportions when we designed our silicon augmentation - all those PCs and supercomputers that can crunch data on vast scales. As such, we have become the most destructive species ever to have evolved. That is pan-global. The idea that the instincts of 1st world man are not the same as 2nd or 3rd world man is inaccurate. The only difference is communication. The same negative mental processes are inherent in any race.

One 'Ohio' or 'Vanguard' class SSBN submarine is capable of destroying life on this planet... People seem to overlook this fact. And how many of just those weapon systems have we amassed? That is ILLOGICAL. Nature is extremely powerful, but we've caught her up in one major respect because of our grasp of quantum physics.

Being an atheist, I do not worry about offending any deity [...though I do enjoy debating and 'winding up' theologians], therefore my beliefs are based on pragmatism. Even though we are now discovering planets left, right and centre, as far as we know, life is pretty rare, this rather nondescript planet in its rather average solar system is the only place we know for sure that life actually exists. Do we not owe it to our own species, let alone those that have no say in the matter to reign in our complacency in the scheme of things?

 

[Herr Kaleun]

I don't CARE how many scientists agree or disagree on whether humankind is responsible for AGW. It is obvious to me that we are responsible, purely by looking down my street and counting the number of vehicles that increase yearly. Whether an exhalation of methane from the depths of some lake is going to deliver more greenhouse gasses than the next years number of cars in my street, is irrelevant. We are loading the dice...

 

[michael pierzga]

So....... this means that you have an awareness of the human effects on our environment. Next step is to figure out what to do about it.

Not easy

Some folks prefer the...back to nature solution

Some folks prefer the..lets just waite until scientists find a magic pill to cure the problem.

No consensus seems to be available for implementation

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

Well, well, well, I have just joined BD.n...

Being an atheist, I do not worry about offending any deity [...though I do enjoy debating and 'winding up' theologians], therefore my beliefs are based on pragmatism...

Her Kaleunt, welcome to BoatDesign.net.

Best to go easy on the religious topics lest our long-suffering moderator throttle the thread -- though I haven't been totally guiltless myself...

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/al...lobal-climate-shift-36195-308.html#post628775

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/al...bout-climate-change-21390-756.html#post433279

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/al...arming-humans-blame-13720-288.html#post557612

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

GRIST | What climate hawks can (and can’t) learn from public-health campaigns

… there’s an interesting article over at The Guardian from Steven Johnson, a sustainability author and consultant, about “costly, time-consuming lessons” on behavior change learned from decades of public health campaigns.

Big bursts of inspiration do nothing to foster long-term behavior change...

Climate communicators often seem to see their job as shocking people into awareness through some dramatic gesture or image — as though the rest will follow naturally from that. But symbolic gestures create the equivalent of sugar highs. They fade. Guiding people into new patterns of behavior (political as well as civic and consumer behavior) requires “clear, actionable steps, combined with practical support to implement them.” It takes a long-term, steady drumbeat with a relentlessly pragmatic focus.

The second point, which I can’t emphasize enough, is that internal attitudes are not the primary driver of most behaviors; context is. If you want to change what people do, it is not enough to make them believe something or feel something or express something to a pollster. You have to change their social and material context, the systems and structures in which they operate. Affordances shape actions. Changing social and material contexts means, among other things, changing public policy.

It’s really important to get that behavior change is not a substitute or an alternative to public policy; indeed, it’s often futile without supportive public policy. You can’t have zoning codes that encourage sprawl and expect people to bike around. The focus cannot be exclusively on individuals.

The third point is that big, broad media campaigns are relatively useless. Remember the We campaign? You probably don’t, which is the point. It’s a classic example of a broad media campaign driven by focus-grouped messages that sounded vaguely nice to everyone but moved almost no one. Worse yet, such campaigns may inadvertently exacerbate inequalities:…

The last one, the most important one, is where the parallel breaks down. Public health advocates, Johnson says, used to believe that people would heed their advice because, well, health is really important!”

No it’s not. Work, money and family are important.
​

There’s been a huge push to make extreme weather the equivalent of illness or trauma, the portal through which climate interacts with ordinary people’s lives. But even given the most dire climate forecasts, extreme weather will directly affect a limited subset of Americans, and even them not that often. It’s difficult for me to see how extreme weather will ever rise on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs to compete with more immediate concerns…

 

[Herr Kaleun]

Her Kaleunt, welcome to BoatDesign.net.

Best to go easy on the religious topics lest our long-suffering moderator throttle the thread -- though I haven't been totally guiltless myself...

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/al...lobal-climate-shift-36195-308.html#post628775

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/al...bout-climate-change-21390-756.html#post433279

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/al...arming-humans-blame-13720-288.html#post557612

Understood Imaginary0 and thanks for the welcome, this forum could work out to be the most stimulating yet...

I realise that the religious topics are, well, controversial, it has been, and possibly will be, forever thus. But is this not what forums are about, to speak your mind? Be that technical, political or theological, there is no escaping the fact that people in general have 'allegiances' to to their
belief systems [devils advocates excepted]. But, I accept your council for there is iron in your words, I would not wish to offend our 'long-suffering' moderator. In truth, as I started with, in my thread, I joined this forum to swap technical knowledge and concepts with like minded individuals like yourself.

It just so happens that my technical concepts and design ideas are founded upon the impact of technology on our environment and how I can minimise this in any way. The two [the technical and the philosophical...] halves of my mindset are mutually conducive; everything I try to do technically, I also consider the impact on our environment, which at times can be almost impossible to implement. So my maxim is "...Every Little Helps".

I am currently formulating ideas to design and ultimately construct a 70 foot catamaran. Ocean capable, highly technical but embracing traditional construction concepts. The aim being to finish off my years sailing the planet, my home, and continuing the role [where I left off with my sojourn in Greenpeace], reporting, undertaking research and communicating that information back to the multitudes; be that chatting to a fisherman in Vanuatu or Vancouver, blogging the web, or reporting direct to the academic community.

PS. Your quoted article from the Guardian was interesting and there is 'iron in those words' to. The more people who engage in this and other major issues, the better. We do need to debate, communicate [to] and educated ourselves [the thinkers...] as well as to others. If we are going to reach those stars...

 

[Herr Kaleun]

So....... this means that you have an awareness of the human effects on our environment. Next step is to figure out what to do about it.

Not easy

Some folks prefer the...back to nature solution

Some folks prefer the..lets just waite until scientists find a magic pill to cure the problem.

No consensus seems to be available for implementation

It is up to those that think and care to implement education of the non-thinkers, to create that consensus for change - globally. A global revolution, if you will. And not before time...

 

[micah719]

Ah, our wise elders and betters will fix the problem. How reassuring. Just obey and pay. Ignore the suspicion you may have that revolution is what they actually want, and this climate hoopla is a convenient excuse. Not a very plausible one when you take a little effort to look and think, though. Downright dodgy when you notice how the mantra stays the same despite every projection failing and being replaced with another.

The climascam has about run its course, and other measures will be necessary. An ocean of blood. Complicity shares the guilt, no plea bargain or time off for good conduct. You sure you want to continue on that bandwagon?