Quote of the Week #2

From “Pragmatic”, on the Lindzen on negative feedback thread:

“What most alarmists don’t seem to fathom is that real people want balance in their decision/learning process. Balance arrives on the wings of debate.”

Art By Geoff Sharp, other artwork submissions will also be used on a rotating basis, thanks to all who submitted. – Anthony

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Quote of the Week #2

  1. (Excellent Comment) Agreed,
    I would like to see a strong commitment too a decision making process by our Politicians that included substantial work on Cost/Benefit analyses with a full array of options examined.

  2. Politicians don’t want debate because consensus gives them their power thus they provide funds for supporting scientific study. We get a positive feedback from their work. In computer terms we have an endless do loop such as 100 go to 200
    200 write AGW
    300 go to 100
    400 END
    We never get to the END!

  3. Pseudoscientists aren’t intellectually capable of debate which is why they allocate all of their time towards censorship, informaiton suppression, and coming up with new and creative ad hominem fallacies.

  4. “I would like to see a strong commitment to a decision making process by our Politicians that included substantial work on Cost/Benefit analyses with a full array of options examined.”
    In the new world we live in cost is no object. We the people who pay the way, will accept any burden placed upon us to save the unions, to hire the inept to be our “green” workers and to bail out those organizations that hold the retirement pensions of our underpaid politicians. The selfsame politicians who will cost us trillions and are now hiring and busing in demonstrators to threaten the lives of people who took the crumbs from them. Are we all really THAT stupid?

  5. Re Balance, costs/benefits, and debate on AGW.
    There is no room for debate of any substance on the AGW issue, at least in one place where the law is already in place, California, via AB 32. What little debate that was attempted, was dismissed by the authors of the regulations, even though every independent expert economist who reviewed the plan concluded the plan was hopelessly optimistic and fatally flawed.
    There is a show of having a debate, by the Air Resources Board receiving comment letters, and posting those letters to their website. Many of those comment letters are great choruses of encouragement for ARB. A few are critical. One can guess which ones are listened to.
    There is no room for balance, as each new regulation under AB 32 begins with the conclusory statement that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse gases, and GHGs must therefore be reduced or eliminated.
    The cost/benefits laid out in the lengthy AB 32 guiding document, the Scoping Plan, show that for every $1 invested, $2 will be returned. The Scoping Plan and Appendix I are more than 500 pages long. The two-for-one return would be great if such a return on investment occurred within one year, but that is not the case. ARB does not know, and cannot say when, because their economic model was not time-sensitive.
    As just a few examples, we have solar PV systems installations with 20 and 30 year payback periods. We have a CVD (chemical vapor deposition) rule where there is no apparent payback, only costs. The existing chemicals work just fine. We have ethanol in fuel requirements where no-one benefits except the farmer and ethanol producer. There is a plan to require oil refineries to install vapor recovery systems on flares, with zero benefit economically. The list goes on and on.
    The AGW alarmists have the ear of the politicians. We need a series of long cold winters and cool gloomy summers to end this before the damage is irreparable.

  6. Mike Bryant (18:52:12) :
    “I would like to see a strong commitment to a decision making process by our Politicians that included substantial work on Cost/Benefit analyses with a full array of options examined.”
    In the new world we live in cost is no object. We the people who pay the way, will accept any burden placed upon us to save the unions, to hire the inept to be our “green” workers and to bail out those organizations that hold the retirement pensions of our underpaid politicians.

    The problem with the new world we live in is it is not thought through, it is growing like a tree grows or a coral reef. Even though we have the power to foresee and decide ahead that power is also random, i.e. without a central goal, because there is no central paradigm.
    Religion was the traditional provider of a central paradigm that gave a map around which a society grew.
    We, in the west, have outgrown the old religions but are doing a bad job of finding a paradigm producer. This leaves the field open for all pseudosciences and pseudoreligions.
    I do not know what the solution is.
    We should realize that with the type of technology we have developed the work ethic, even were it possible to instill it through education, is redundant. At the moment we are outsourcing jobs that would have allowed for the work ethic to express itself at all levels of society. What happens is, that with the left over impulses our societies are over grooming themselves, like neurotic cats. The situation will get worse as technology progresses, energy will become freely available, through fusion or break through in solar panels, and robots will take over all tedious work. The only work left will be creative work, and it is not for all people at all levels.
    This is a transition period where we still believe in the one to one correspondence of money to goods and services. When goods and services will be mainly provided by robots money will be irrelevant.
    What is happening:
    Already many people are being educated over their level of interest and abilities to get them out of the work force. This will get worse.
    At some level, the people who want to reduce the world’s population and are riding the AGW ship of fools are reacting, probably subliminally, to these conditions: their solution is less people and a more primitive life that gives work to all.
    My solution would be to acknowledge that pretty soon we will all belong to the leisure classes ( if a world war does not reduce us to the stone age of the malthusians), and that is the way societies should start developing. As technology progresses and less and less jobs need people, we should take lessons from the leisure classes of the feudal system. That is where we shall end by inherent to our makeup mapping. After all the feudal system gave us the enlightenment.
    We should start by white washing the dole.
    p.s. note bene : if WWIII does not reduce us back to square number one.

  7. Mike Bryant (18:52:12) :

    Are we all really THAT stupid?

    Thanks Mike, I don’t think that we all really THAT stupid – however the threshold of pain that must first be suffered before activity begins seems to be quite high.
    And frankly I’m no better than most – my political actions are minimal – i.e. voting at elections covers it…

  8. Roger Sowell (20:48:54) :
    ….
    The cost/benefits laid out in the lengthy AB 32 guiding document, the Scoping Plan, show that for every $1 invested, $2 will be returned. The Scoping Plan and Appendix I are more than 500 pages long. The two-for-one return would be great if such a return on investment occurred within one year, but that is not the case. ARB does not know, and cannot say when, because their economic model was not time-sensitive.
    ….

    Establishing and maintaining Fair, Efficient and Effective Governance is a core problem for Humanity.
    I have no solution.

  9. Roger Sowell:
    What you say about California is reflected in the UK. To reduce CO2 emissions by 60% would have cost of £200bn and give a benefit of £100bn whereas suddenly, at the stroke of a pen, to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% would cost £400bn for a benefit of £1,000bn. Following this logic, the benefit from totally eliminating CO2 would be stupendous. Of course no explanation is given for how these calculations are made. See the article by Christopher Booker at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5105923/Yet-more-mind-boggling-figures-on-global-warming.html

  10. Graeme Rodaughan (21:55:36) :
    Establishing and maintaining Fair, Efficient and Effective Governance is a core problem for Humanity.

    “Democracy is the worst of political systems – apart from all the other ones which have been tried.”
    According to Malaclypse the Younger, society passes through five repeating stages:
    Anarchy
    Monarchy
    Oligarchy
    Democracy
    Bureaucracy
    Guess where we are.
    🙂

  11. Hi
    I’m the site owner of ClimateRealists.Com and post Piers Corbyn long range weather forecasts, Piers has said there is more to come
    => Around 11-15 April North USA / South Canada – Massive disruptive snow delugees and major storms of extreme wind snow and rain / sleet / hail eg South Central Canada (Lake Superior included) and North Central USA ( eg Minnesota) More snow and extreme hail/rain . Confidence 85%
    See http://climaterealists.com/news.php?id=3117

  12. I would like to see a strong commitment too a decision making process by our Politicians that included substantial work on Cost/Benefit analyses with a full array of options examined.
    Cost/Benefit analysis has been done by several well known figures. Dr John Christy cites the research in the following debate. If all the steps are taken to mitigate global warming (building nuclear power stations daily, shutting down coal stations, wind, solar, carbon trading, etc) it would cost trillions and the difference would be a decrease of 0.07C degrees off the warming trend by 2100. No, that was not a typo, 0.07C. It is a figure that everyone on both sides of the debate agrees with.
    http://jlf.streamhammer.com/speakers/globalwarmingdebate021109.mp4

  13. “What most alarmists don’t seem to fathom is that real people want balance in their decision/learning process. Balance arrives on the wings of debate.”
    I believe the alarmists DO fathom this however they could care less about what real people want. They only want what they want, the rest of us be damned. Their point of view is simply, “We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others”. They look into the mirror and see themselves as the holy saviours of whatever they currently believe needs saving.

  14. Aron
    Have this Romm doofus sign his name to it in a $10,000 bet. Five feet in 90 years means 6.67 inches in 10 years.
    Demand that he puts his money down on this.
    You won’t find one effing AGW scientist or alarmist who will take that bet. We know it’s bullcrap, and they know its bullcrap too.
    The next guy who goes in a debate with these out-of-control alarmists must demand they put money down where their big pieholes are.

  15. How is a question on debate “on the wrong thread” on a thread that starts with a quote about robust debate?

  16. anna v 21:30:17: To paraphrase your well-stated philosophy in Montana bucolic lexicon: Show me a man who don’t believe in anything and I’ll show you a man who will fall for everything.

  17. “What most alarmists don’t seem to fathom is that real people want balance in their decision/learning process. Balance arrives on the wings of debate.”
    Well, it is my experience that with some of the alarmists posters at WUWT you can debate until your pants fall off without any result.
    Since our politicians obviously don’t mind what the real people think about their policies we have moved into dangerous territory.
    http://green-agenda and http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.htm
    No sane person in the world would like to see these agenda’s executed in their times.

  18. Great post – anna v (21:30:17) :
    I think this is the real reason why Obama is so into the renewable energy thing, independent of CO2. Might as well find jobs where people will feel that they are doing something, and maybe they will make some contribution to reducing oil imports.
    One other thing I’ve been wondering and prompted by some of the above posts to ask: Has anyone run a model on how the Mauna Loa CO2 trace is going to look under various scenarios ?? That ought to be something the modelers could handle and maybe get right.
    After the Der Spiegel article that was linked on here, showing the cap and trade scheme had not removed one molecule of CO2 from the atmosphere, how about a realistic model, or extreme models where 100 million wind turbines are erected across Europe (and the States) and the Chinese continue build coal-fired plants ??
    Let’s all see what we’re being asked to pay for.

  19. The trouble is that green politicians all over the world are not the minds after the green agenda, they are but the puppets in the show. They are but simple men who were deceived by their masters who told them they were the chosen ones to rule the world.
    It could happend also that if this “script” of global warming or “climate chaange” doesn´t work any more because it has lost credibility, puppets will be surely changed along with the script. So we must alert the puppets, which by definition, are not so clever as to realize its shameful condition, to awake just a bit enough to look for another master or masters. 🙂

  20. Tom in Florida (03:25:52) : I believe the alarmists DO fathom this however they could care less about what real people want. They only want what they want, the rest of us be damned. Their point of view is simply, “We are all equal but some of us are more equal than others”. They look into the mirror and see themselves as the holy saviours of whatever they currently believe needs saving.
    At one point in my life I was headed into the medical field. (Later I decided to chase money more directly 😉 At that time, I worked on a Psych ward of a major teaching hospital (and in another venue picked up 12 units of Med School Psych, but that’s another story…). There were many astounding things I learned on the Psych ward, but probably the most shaking was that each and every one of use lives in a fantasy world to some extent. The goal of rational people is to minimize that extent. The insane maximize it. We all have it from time to time (do you really think you look good in that favorite outfit from 2 decades ago?)
    So what do I see in the AGW side? Messiah complexes. Saviours one and all. Mixed with paranoid delusions and the zeal of “The End Is Neigh!” that was soaked up by the nuttier doom-and-gloom religious sects of the past. Mixed together into a self re-enforcing world view of crowd psychosis.
    There are a few “scientists” who have much less of this; sometimes only enough to allow for the self delusion that their bit of “work” is contributing to a greater good by finding the Bad Thing that will happen assuming AGW happens but not bothering to question the catechism. Sometimes full blown Millerites frothing in fervor.
    IMHO, this is a normal and natural part of being human and we can not change it. In the past these urges would have been absorbed into other paths, but with nationalism being very non-PC, with religion on the skids, and with little in the way of real disasters to deal with (given our technological advances) what’s a good paranoid zealot to do for satisfaction? So we have a manic self delusional social movement.
    Unfortunately, it has always been this way and while these things do, in time, pass: it is typically only after far longer than you would expect and after a truly undeniable overwhelming failure of the delusion causes the least affected to turn away. But even then, as the Millerites history shows, a core of believers will simply “correct” the delusion for one more round…
    And that is why I’m hoping that we have a spectacular frozen decade, with the likely outcome being 10,000 to 100,000 dead. To stop this insanity before it kills 1,000,000 to 10,000,000. Have I mentioned lately that Economics is called “The Dismal Science” for a reason? What else could you call a science that has as one of it’s foundational members Malthus who’s work still colors the landscape of Doom & Gloom today … I never did like the population dynamics part of the field, but it is essential to understand it; and to be able to speak calmly about how many will die from an economic policy, and know that the lesser of two evils (while still evil) is the better path to take…
    So, IMHO, the only real hope is to have a spectacular failure to advance into warming (i.e. a frozen decade) that causes the dispersal of all but the core of the AGW movement. Then we can get back to the job of picking up the pieces… Anything less than that will leave room for the AGW followers to continue to share their extraordinary popular delusion in this madness of crowds…

  21. .M.Smith (09:09:54) :
    I agree totally! It seems that a consensus really means that there is a small group of totalitarians who want to impose their will on the majority without dialog about the arguments. This is a political power type of disillusion/insanity that has enslaved and killed millions throughout history. Recently when I received my university’s news magazine its engineering articles were all about the “green” aspects of their investigations/studies and I assume this is true for most engineering universities. They fail to consider alternate conclusions that made lead to plans to prevent or ameliorate worldwide disasters.

  22. According to contributors to a certain site that insists that it offers scientific news by working climate scientists:scientists do not want to engage in public debate as it gives an unfair advantage to the lies and misrepresentation of advocates of alternative views (my paraphrasing of a number of posts).
    There is apparently no opportunity for peer review in debates, so the audience can be more easily swayed by a forceful presentation of false data. Now didn’t a certain Mr Gore ………

  23. What most alarmists don’t seem to fathom is that real people want balance in their decision/learning process. Balance arrives on the wings of debate. …. with an open mind, in an open society.
    The shown behaviour by the alarmists ends – sooner or later – in a repressive society.

  24. To make a balanced judgement we need to see all the facts and that imvolves a debate
    There has been no debate therefore they are hiding something.

  25. edcon (10:45:39) :
    Recently when I received my university’s news magazine its engineering articles were all about the “green” aspects of their investigations/studies and I assume this is true for most engineering universities. They fail to consider alternate conclusions that made lead to plans to prevent or ameliorate worldwide disasters.

    My first university, Missouri-Rolla, has been caught up in the green hype since before I graduated in 1990. Oddly, none of the professors I had leaned that way. The IEEE, arguably the most prominent, and probably largest, professional engineering society, is big time in the tank. Fortunately, they are not “OH NOES!!! GW is going to kill us all!!!” more like “here’s what we can do to ameliorate .”
    Oddly, none of the engineers I know (that I’ve discussed this with) buy into the hype even the slightest bit.
    Mark

  26. “Debate” is really only for the dreamer; or so this New York Times story seems to imply. It has nothing to do with global warming/climate change in its subject matter; but everything about the power available to at least attempt to force an agenda.
    But that prediction is based on an estimate based on extrapolations based on assumptions that have yet to be demonstrated despite a half-century of efforts
    Public Policy That Makes Test Subjects of Us All

  27. Mark T
    “My first university, Missouri-Rolla, has been caught up in the green hype since before I graduated in 1990.”
    It is with dismay, that I viewed the Spring Issue of Mizzou cover with the modern wind turbine next to a decrepit barn and the inside story, Wind Power Changes Missouri’s Landscape. When I graduated U of Mo, Columbia, in 1958, the physics and math professors were apolitical (one professor was a fan of Tom Lehrer) and political science was a separate course in the foundation of our system of government and the interactions of the different branches of government.
    There was a course in philosophy called logic. I wonder if the course is still taught?

  28. Re: Graeme Rodaughan (17:58:37) :
    “I would like to see a strong commitment to a decision making process by our Politicians that included substantial work on Cost/Benefit analyses with a full array of options examined.”
    That would be the Politicians of fairyland you are talking about – right?
    Sorry, in over 37 yrs I’ve never met one of those….

Comments are closed.