Climate Change Stunner: U.S. Leads the World in CO2 Reductions Since 2006, Thanks to Natural Gas
The Vancouver Observer reports:
"The Americans? Really? Every year the International Energy Agency (IEA) calculates humanity's CO2 pollution from burning fossil fuels. And once again, the overall story line is one of ever-increasing emissions:
"Global carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combustion reached a record high of 31.6 gigatons in 2011."The world has yet to figure out how to stop the relentless increase in climate pollution. But mixed in with all the bad news there was one shining ray of hope. One of the biggest obstacles to climate action may be shifting. As the IEA highlighted:
"US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. This development has arisen from lower oil use in the transport sector … and a substantial shift from coal to gas in the power sector."How big is a cut of 430 million tons of CO2? It's equal to eliminating the combined emissions of ten western states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah and Nevada.
It seems the planet's biggest all-time CO2 polluter is finally reducing its emissions. Not only that, but as the chart above shows, US CO2 emissions are falling even faster than what President Obama pledged in the global Copenhagen Accord.
Here is the biggest shocker of all: the average American's CO2 emissions are down to levels not seen since 1964 -- almost half a century ago."
345 Comments:
this is extremely ironic, but largely meaningless in terms of climate.
the catastrophic failure of the ipcc/giss models has largely rendered their CO2 based hypotheses meaningless.
http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-models/
world co2 levels have gone up by more than the worst IPCC/GISS case and temperatures have risen by less that their best case in which co2 actually declined.
co2 driven warming is one of the greatest hoaxes ever.
but the irony of the big proponents failing to hit targets or even reduce co2 while the us, who did not sign the treaties has done so is pretty rich.
so much for the good intentions of the EU...
I am glad these reductions are coming from technological changes rather than reduced consumption or production.
The VO apparently doesn't know that energy use per capita in the US stagnated back in the late 1960s and technology alone is responsible for that. It isn't surprising that the wealthiest country also pollutes less over time. Which makes capitalism the best steward of the environment that man has yet invented.
Here is the biggest shocker of all: the average American's CO2 emissions are down to levels not seen since 1964 -- over half a century ago."
Why would this be a shock to anyone. First, the real economy is extremely weak. With lower demand we would expect lower emissions. Second, manufactured units are down sharply as more and more parts and finished goods come from abroad. Third, as the EPA forces more and more coal plants to close we expect even the same amount of electricity to produce fewer CO2 emissions.
Of course, we know that none of this matters because under Obama's watch global warming was no longer an issue as temperatures continued to decline. Sea level increases are now flat to negative, sea ice is growing, and the idiots in the EU are praying for warmth.
even more amazing and shocking... a true worldwide conspiracy of scientists and collaborating governments, to foist this hoax, eh?
Pretty soon, we'll hear that cancer is also massive hoax perpetrated to gain govt dollars for "research" ...also...and we'll start to see proof that the cancer researchers have been conspiring with each other to doctor the data so they can boost their funding and hire even more confederates...
even more amazing and shocking... a true worldwide conspiracy of scientists and collaborating governments, to foist this hoax, eh?
A few problems with your statement that indicate that you are either very ignorant of just plain stupid. (Or both.)
First, most scientists have no clue about climate change because it is not an area that they know much about.
Second, there has never been a decent survey that shows what most scientists think about the subject so you are just guessing that they are true believers.
Third, it is not surprising at all. 'Scientists' were supporting all kind of nonsense for decades even though they were wrong. Most were not wrong, they were just ignorant. You might want to look into Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, Alfred Lothar Wegener, Dan Shechtman, Barry Marshall, Robin Warren, and many others who were ridiculed by the establishment before they were recognized for being right.
Pretty soon, we'll hear that cancer is also massive hoax perpetrated to gain govt dollars for "research" ...also...and we'll start to see proof that the cancer researchers have been conspiring with each other to doctor the data so they can boost their funding and hire even more confederates...
Well, this comment points to stupidity rather than just ignorance. I suggest that you try to find where the IPCC provided any empirical evidence, which is what true science requires, to show that human emissions of CO2 have any material role in temperature trend changes. If you can't, and models are not empirical evidence, then there is no evidence for the AGW hypothesis.
VangelV: I suggest that you try to find where the IPCC provided any empirical evidence, which is what true science requires, to show that human emissions of CO2 have any material role in temperature trend changes.
We tried that, but you reject any data that contradicts your position, while accepting the same data when it supports your position.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
SteveH: Which makes capitalism the best steward of the environment that man has yet invented.
Yes, strong markets and robust growth are essential to responding to the challenges of climate change (but not unrestrained or uninformed capitalism).
What happened in 2006-2007 that caused the spike on the graph?
We tried that, but you reject any data that contradicts your position, while accepting the same data when it supports your position.
First of all, you show no evidence that human emissions of CO2 are a driver of temperature. Second, what you show is plot of 'adjusted' data in which an artificial trend has been added to the measured temperatures, not a plot of actual temperature measurements.
In science you do not get to change the data and hide the codes and methods used to make the changes. You leave everything open to review and replication by INDEPENDENT researchers.
Here is a look at the temperature anomaly and CO2 concentrations. There is no material statistical correlation between the two. And for the past 15 years there is no statistical warming trend in the data.
larry-
before you embarrass yourself here, please understand, i did an in depth, 6 month study of this issue for one of the biggest hedge funds in the world. i have spoken to most of the IPCC authors and dozens and dozen of the top scientist in this space. my information here is not from popular media, but from the primary sources. i wrote a 500 page report on this and saved a huge fund from making the terrible decision of going into carbon trading. i started the project assuming AGW was real because, like you, i believed there was a consensus among scientists. there isn't. even that claim is a lie.
the data is horrendously bad, terribly falsified, and the models are totally unsound.
the basis theory of AGW is fatally flawed and has most of its causality backward. the whole threat is based on feedbacks from water vapor and clouds that have been proven to have the wrong sign in the models. that is why they have diverged from reality so greatly. the world has not warmed since 1998. look it up yourself.
it's not a conspiracy, it's bad incentives and groupthink.
the IPCC etc hands out billions in grants every year and blacklists anyone who disagrees.
scientists face a stark choice of getting on board or getting no money.
the IPCC is a political, not a scientific body. it's a tool for UN world government.
if you doubt this, read laframboise's book "the delinquent teenager". it's preposterously well documented.
it would hardly be the first organization to do so. look at the epa and ddt.
perhaps you missed the "climategate" travesty? if that was not a conspiracy to fake data and exaggerate a threat, then i do not know what is.
also note: most of these scientists were the same guys warning us about global cooling in the 70's and predicting another ice age. the solution: stop burning fossil fuels.
funny how fossil fuels seem to cause cooling and warming, no? no matter what the climate does, we need to stop burning fossil fuels!
in reality, what happend was the sun got more active and the PDO (a pacific current with 30 year modes) shifted from cold to warm in 1976. it recently shifted back to cold. the ado will soon follow.
the sun has also become more quiescent.
10 years from now it will be colder than today, not warmer.
it is physically impossible for co2 to cause runaway warming. it's a natural log function with an asymptotic max.
the world has had co2 levels 25 times what they are now.
we are currently in an ice age (though in an interglacial). in less that 10% of the last 500 million years (the period in which multi cellular life has existed on earth) has it been cold enough to have ice at both poles.
this ice age began with co levels 5x what they are now.
AGW is easy to believe in if you get your info from newspapers, but if you really do the work, you realize the science is abysmal and the data worse.
http://surfacestations.org
anthony has done fantastic work organizing a survey of the us weather stations the NOAA uses. (a survey they have NEVER done themselves) fewer than 10% are sited properly.
over 70% are sited in such a way as to have >2 degrees C of positive heat error using the NOAA's own guidelines.
so you tell me, how you you measure a 0.6 degree per century signal from stations with errors that high and get anything that could possibly be statistically significant?
the current state of climate science is roughly akin to the state of medicine in 1700. they just use computers to promote their quackery instead of potions.
It's sad this has become such a political football. Science in general has taken a huge black eye.
VangelV: most scientists have no clue about climate change because it is not an area that they know much about.
The closer to the specialty of climatology, the higher the agreement about anthropogenic climate change.
VangelV: there has never been a decent survey that shows what most scientists think about the subject so you are just guessing that they are true believers.
The survey that matters is the published research. Essentially all current research supports the basic theory.
VangelV: 'Scientists' were supporting all kind of nonsense for decades even though they were wrong.
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
VangelV: I suggest that you try to find where the IPCC provided any empirical evidence, which is what true science requires, to show that human emissions of CO2 have any material role in temperature trend changes.
Well, let's start with the evidence that, for whatever reason, the Earth's surface has been warming over the last half century.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
VangelV: You leave everything open to review and replication by INDEPENDENT researchers.
Actually, it's better to use completely independent means to verify the trends, which has been done repeatedly. Of course, trends don't indicate causation. It could be cyclical, but you can't have that discussion as long as you wave your hands at the data.
VangelV: Here is a look at the temperature anomaly and CO2 concentrations.
You're not very good at reading graphs. Both show an upward trend. It's even more obvious when we remove ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations. See,
Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg
VangelV: There is no material statistical correlation between the two. And for the past 15 years there is no statistical warming trend in the data.
Short term doesn't always reveal the long term trend, but you are incorrect, as was pointed out to you before.
morganovich: also note: most of these scientists were the same guys warning us about global cooling in the 70's and predicting another ice age. the solution: stop burning fossil fuels.
You say you spent months studying the subject, but you make such a weak argument. There are two basic countervailing influences. Aerosols cool the planet's surface. Greenhouse gases warm it. The question is which has the greatest effect over time. It was almost immediately apparent that greenhouse gases would prevail over the long term. Nor was there ever any consensus about global cooling. More important, climate science today is far more developed than in the 1970's. Arguing against a distorted view of 1970's science is a strawman.
zach-
"
Well, let's start with the evidence that, for whatever reason, the Earth's surface has been warming over the last half century.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php"
if that is your evidence, then you have no argument. that's not evidence, it's an example of some of the worst data handling in the history of science.
http://surfacestations.org
anthony has done fantastic work organizing a survey of the us weather stations the NOAA uses. (a survey they have NEVER done themselves) fewer than 10% are sited properly.
over 70% are sited in such a way as to have >2 degrees C of positive heat error using the NOAA's own guidelines.
so you tell me, how you you measure a 0.6 degree per century signal from stations with errors that high and get anything that could possibly be statistically significant?
hint: you can't.
the whole IPCC argument is inferential.
has the world warmed since the 1850's? sure, absolutely. no question. but that was the little ice age, the coldest period in the last 9000 years.
me medieval warm period was warmer than today, the roman period warmer still, the minoan yet warmer, and the 300 year holocene climate optimum far warmer than any of those.
warming does not prove agw.
the whole agw case goes like this. the world has warmed. we have a model of climate that fails to even backcast correctly. nevertheless, we are going to pretend it is correct and that we know all the variables and attribute all warming it does not explain to man.
the hubris of it is staggering.
it's also been proven wrong.
read my first post. see the models, see reality? see the divergence?
oops. there goes your model. yes, the one they pretended was accurate and need to be accurate.
so, bad data, worse models, and yet you are ok with the conculsions.
for agw to be something to worry about, 3 things need to be true.
1. the world must be warming.
2. man must be the cause
3. that must be a bad thing.
not a single one of those is proven or even has real evidence to support it.
the world has warmed for 150 years. that has brough it back into line with the 5000 year downtrend temps have been it before they departed radically to the downside during the little ice age (a terrible time for humanity, a time of famine and death caused by short growing seasons and cold)
the evidence for co2 is even worse. it's not even circumstantial, it's just wrong. the vostok ice cores show that co2 rises AFTER temps in every intergalcial. ti's an effect, not a cause.
warm water holds less co2.
the feedback from water vapor and cloud system is negative, not positive. (see lindzen, prepfessor emeritus at MIT's adaptive heat iris thesis)
solar activity is dramatically compounded by the effect of solar wind on high atmosphere ionization and therefore cloudiness.
this is in none of the models and solves the "the sun could not have so much effect" issue. see svensmark on this.
there is not a shred of actual empirical evidence that co2 can drive meaningful warming from these levels. it's a ln function with an asymptotic max.
and the evidence that a little warming is bad is flimsiest of all.
warm periods (medeival, roman, minoan) were periods of prosperity and human well being. the cold period in between saw empires fall and the dark ages.
the overwhelming evidence is that an incremental 2 degrees of warming would be vastly superior to 2 degrees of cooling, and likely beneficial overall.
plants grow better with higher co2 levels. commercial greenhouses run at 500ppm+.
thus, the agw thesis strikes out on all 3 questions (apart from possibly q1 but only for very limited timeframes and that only matters if you think 1850's climate was better than today, a proposition for which there is absolutely no evidence)
zach-
i am, well aware of the alleged aerosol issues. however, they also cause warming as particulates accumulate on ice sheets and reduce their albedo. the net effect is not clear in either size or direction.
so, nice try, but no qewpie doll.
my key point was that the answer is always "stop burning fossil fuels" no matter which way temps move.
these are not "scientists" they are politicized hacks (especially hansen at GISS, try meeting that guy. he is a nutter and a zealot.) in the employ of watermelons (green outside, red inside) seeking to gain economic and political control through energy.
the IPCC is the most close minded, cynical, and fraudulent collection of work in science since the catholic church's celestial spheres.
i am probably one of a few hundred people who has read ar4 cover to cover.
it's evidence is shockingly weak, poorly sourced, and deliberately exaggerated in the summary for policymakers.
recall that ar3 featured mann's hockey stick as it's centerpiece only to have it utterly debunked, proven to be statistal fraud, and the algorithm show to produce hockey stick from random numbers.
not that man still will not release his data nor will giss, hadcrut, etc.
that is NOT how science is done. that's how lies are told and cabals defended.
sorry, that's 3000 year holocene optimum. missed a zero.
The closer to the specialty of climatology, the higher the agreement about anthropogenic climate change.
The 'specialty of climatology'? What does that even mean in a dynamic, non-linear system in which there are many drivers of cyclical trends but little in the way of uncertainty? Have you seen the people chosen by the IPCC to do the ARs? There are very few people who would be classified at climatologists. You have some specialists in narrow fields but mostly political appointees who are working on the ASSUMPTION that human beings are important driver of climate change AND that the models which have failed are accurate.
Most of the 'team' which has promoted the AGW lies has little in the way of training in advanced statistical techniques and little knowledge of the hard sciences that are supposed to be the building block of any sound theory.
The survey that matters is the published research. Essentially all current research supports the basic theory.
Which one? The 79 anonymous responses that are being touted as 98%? The survey that asked if the earth had warmed? (Note that skeptics don't disagree with this because they know that we have warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age.) The survey that asked if man had an impact? (Note that most skeptics would argue yes, as I do, because we know that the changes in land use matter to the measurements.)
Point to the survey please. And then tell us what the questions were, how many people responded, and what was their specialty.
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
My point exactly. History is full of examples where the discipline that should have known best responded the worst. Dan Shechtman was ridiculed for years and fired from his job. He was called a quasi-scientist by Linus Pauling and a disgrace by the head of the research team who fired him.
In the climate field we have Svensmark, who put forth a great theory that was ridiculed right until the empirical evidence showed that the proposed mechanism was valid and provided evidence in nature that fit the theory perfectly at all scales. This is why so many AGW promoters have left the sinking ship and so many are now showing interest in solar activity. I guess that too many supporters have had enough of seeing the promoters rewrite the past, to risk more ridicule in their professional lives.
continued below...
Well, let's start with the evidence that, for whatever reason, the Earth's surface has been warming over the last half century.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
But this is not evidence of anything because the trend does not show up in the actual temperature measurements.
We already have seen how AGW promoters and data gatekeepers have rewritten the past.
We already know that the data is 'adjusted' by adding an artificial warming signal to it. That is not science in the normal meaning of the word because science requires transparency and reproducibility from the original data. All adjustments to any data point have to be justified and all uncertainties have to be disclosed.
Actually, it's better to use completely independent means to verify the trends, which has been done repeatedly. Of course, trends don't indicate causation. It could be cyclical, but you can't have that discussion as long as you wave your hands at the data.
No. The replication is done from the 'adjusted' data after the warming signal has been added. I do not dispute that once you use the value-added data sets you get warming since the 1930s. I dispute that the value-added set is valid in the first place. We did have warming since the mid 1800s. That warming peaked in the 1930s. Since then we cooled until the 1970s and warmed until the latter part of the 1990s. We have been cooling since then. The patterns are easily explained by solar activity, changes in the PDO and AMO, the emissions of soot, and ENSO conditions. There is very little room for CO2 in the big picture because CO2 has a minor effect that is not worth worrying about.
You're not very good at reading graphs. Both show an upward trend. It's even more obvious when we remove ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations. See,
Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg
Actually, I am very good at reading the graph. It shows a cyclical pattern while CO2 concentrations are going up at a fairly good clip. And yes, if you keep adjusting the data you can make the fake trend fit the CO2 concentrations. But we have already seen far too many adjustments to pay any attention to the same old cry wolf frauds.
Short term doesn't always reveal the long term trend, but you are incorrect, as was pointed out to you before.
The radiative imbalance argument and the IPCC's feedback estimates do not leave much room for flat to negative trends even over short periods. If CO2 has the effect being claimed the warming has to show up as stored heat in the oceans and warmer temperatures. But the satellites and the ARGO data falsify those claims.
1964 is not "over half a century ago".
zach-
also note:
these are the same scientist that told us they were sure last time. they had "science" on their side. they gad consensus. unless we stopped burning fossil fuel, we were going to get another ice age.
so, after flying off the handlebars and being wrong and hysterical last time, suddenly now they are mature paragons of probity that we ought to trust without checking their work?
the same guys that have swapped "global warming" out and "climate change" in because the world stopped warming?
the same ones that made all the debunked extreme weather claims (cyclonic activity has been dropping and is on its lows).
this gang is just constantly seeking bugbears to frighten us out of using fossil fuels because that is what the UN pays them for.
they are lobbyists in labcoats and have not yet done ANYTHING to demonstrate that they have any actual ability to do what they claim.
the surest way to make mistakes is to pretend you know what you do not know.
these "scientists" are claiming to understand one of the most complex, chaotic, non-linear, backchained systems on the planet yet cannot even predict the weather.
You say you spent months studying the subject, but you make such a weak argument. There are two basic countervailing influences. Aerosols cool the planet's surface.
I recall GISS arguing that soot emissions were adding to the warming particularly in the Arctic and the NH. You give us the same argument that we can use a plug in factor for particulates to do away with the inconvenient fact that the correlations are so poor and often negative. That may have worked before but people do not believe it any longer.
Which is why the IPCC moved away from global warming to climate change and is now shifting to diversity and species extinction.
"The survey that matters is the published research. Essentially all current research supports the basic theory."
1. this is utter nonsense as you'd know if you actually read any.
2. this is a stupid metric. the agw crowd love to trumpet "peer reviewed" like that means it's settled. this is utter crap. first off, they have perverted the receive process into a tight game of pass the parcel where they all review one another's work and approve anything "on message".
second, peer review is the starting line, not the finish.
what matters is what happens then. do predictions prove accurate? can it be repeated? can others rebut it?
the answers to those have been no. no. yes.
the agw folks have been DEMOLISHED in the literature evaluation phase.
it's almost all been shown to be bad statistics, bad predictions, and outright lies. even the data is useless ( at least before 1979)
the ipcc fails at getting over even the low "peer review" bar they set for themselves.
# all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
# 5,587 are not peer-reviewed
oopsie.
many of the key claims were shown to be unsupported assertions from wwf literature or outright lies (like the ones on Himalayan glaciers)
most shocking, the all important chapter 9, the scientific centerpiece of the whole work, the "understanding and attributing climate change chapter" had 47% of the citations in it from non peer reviewed sources. (wk group 3)
you'd have trouble handing that in as an undergrad paper, much less a serious scientific work intended to shape world climate policy.
SteveH: Which makes capitalism the best steward of the environment that man has yet invented.
Zach: Yes, strong markets and robust growth are essential to responding to the challenges of climate change (but not unrestrained or uninformed capitalism).
What the hell is "unrestrained and uniformed capitalism"? As far as I know the basic economic problem is one of scarcity against unlimmited wants. And there is no limit on what can be traded in a market. So, in short, the market is informed by relative limits or scarcity and unlimitted wants hence there are non-zero prices. Capitalists deploy capital within the confines of the basic economic problem. Pollution appears to be self limiting as people desire a cleaner environment; even in the absence of regulation there would exist natural limits or scarcity of clean water and air which would make them objects of marrket processes. We have never allowed markets to properly work in the absence of regulation. But the fact that per capita we have been at energy satiation for over 40 years should inform you that markets do in fact work. In fact they have worked so well that simple fuel switching has put us on a lower trajectory for all flue gas and tailpipe emissions of all kinds including Co2. Don't forget that the "shale gale" took everyone by surprise including Obama.
was the Ozone Hole also a scam?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/06/noaas-national-climatic-data-center-caught-cooling-the-past-modern-processed-records-dont-match-paper-records/
oops. noaa caught lying. again.
making the past colder to intensify the warming trend.
naughty naughty.
and you seriously want to trust these folks?
re ozone:
not sure it's a "scam" as no one really profited.
i think the science was shaky (but admittedly do not know a ton about it)
the cfc scare largely came from one paper by molina and rowland in 1974 who claimed that chlorine was depleting ozone.
there are lots of natural sources of chlorine atoms and ions.
the purported addition to global cl levels from cfc's is all based on a model.
there is no empirical data.
there are numerous studies such as this one that purport to show the ozone hole was not caused by cfc's.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-responsible-for-the-antarctic-ozone-hole/
i have not really looked at it enough to have a strong personal opinion other than saying the science in support looks pretty thin from such exposure as i have had.
there's a good chapter on it in widavsky's excellent book on public policy around environment "but is it true?"
v-
"
Which is why the IPCC moved away from global warming to climate change and is now shifting to diversity and species extinction."
my hunch is they are moving to "sustainability". that's where the goracle is heading and the ipcc tends to follow suit.
gore is a scientific illiterate and a nitwit, but he's good at seeing which way the wind is blowing and getting ahead of these trends of nitwittery (and leaving the table before the bill comes on his prior failures).
not sure it's a "scam" as no one really profited.
Of course someone profited. Freon was coming off patent a year before it was banned. (U.S. Patent #3258500, held by DuPont) After the ban a new replacement refrigerant had to be found. Fortunately DuPont had a patent on it. While not as safe to use it certainly was far more profitable for the company.
i think the science was shaky (but admittedly do not know a ton about it)
The science was shaky. You get an ozone hole in the winter because there is not much UV radiation to produce it. When the sunshine shows up so does the ozone.
And if you look at the literature you find an argument that the ozone is destroyed by an increase in CRF and see a nice 11 year pattern that the activists failed to note when arguing that freon should be banned.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"The decrease in U.S. CO2 emissions in 2009 resulted primarily from three factors: an economy in recession, a particularly hard-hit energy-intensive industries sector, and a large drop in the price of natural gas that caused fuel switching away from coal to natural gas. The latter, which further lowered our emissions intensity, was the direct result of technology advancements, such as hydro-fracturing of shale, called ‘fracking.’ Improvements occurred even in years of economic growth, not just recession."
http://www.masterresource.org/2012/04/misdirected-innovation-cap-trade/
Emissions intensity, or carbon intensity, refers to the amount of carbon released per unit of energy. In moving from wood to coal to natural gas, there are more hydrogen atoms to carbon atoms, therefore releasing more energy per carbon atom.
v-
i suspect ozone also got made into a big deal by "discovery bias".
before the late 70's there were no satellites even capable of noticing an ozone hole. then we "found" it and assumed it must be new as opposed to somehting that had been happening for millennia.
that's interesting on the freon.
would not be the first time dupont pulled that little stunt.
they pushed marijuana into illegality as well to get rid of the hemp so they could sell nylon rope.
The actual story behind the legislature passed against marijuana is quite surprising. According to Jack Herer, author of The Emperor Wears No Clothes and an expert on the "hemp conspiracy," the acts bringing about the demise of hemp were part of a large conspiracy involving DuPont, Harry J. Anslinger, commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and many other influential industrial leaders such as William Randolph Hearst and Andrew Mellon. Herer notes that the Marijuana Tax Act, which passed in 1937, coincidentally occurred just as the decoricator machine was invented. With this invention, hemp would have been able to take over competing industries almost instantaneously. According to Popular Mechanics, "10,000 acres devoted to hemp will produce as much paper as 40,000 acres of average [forest] pulp land." William Hearst owned enormous timber acreage, land best suited for conventional pulp, so his interest in preventing the growth of hemp can be easily explained. Competition from hemp would have easily driven the Hearst paper-manufacturing company out of business and significantly lowered the value of his land. Herer even suggests popularizing the term "marijuana" was a strategy Hearst used in order to create fear in the American public. "The first step in creating hysteria was to introduce the element of fear of the unknown by using a word that no one had ever heard of before... 'marijuana'" (ibid).
DuPont's involvment in the anti-hemp campaign can also be explained with great ease. At this time, DuPont was patenting a new sulfuric acid process for producing wood-pulp paper. "According to the company's own records, wood-pulp products ultimately accounted for more than 80% of all DuPont's railroad car loadings for the next 50 years" (ibid). Indeed it should be noted that "two years before the prohibitive hemp tax in 1937, DuPont developed a new synthetic fiber, nylon, which was an ideal substitute for hemp rope" (Hartsell). The year after the tax was passed DuPont came out with rayon, which would have been unable to compete with the strength of hemp fiber or its economical process of manufacturing. "DuPont's point man was none other than Harry Anslinger...who was appointed to the FBN by Treasury Secretary Andrew MEllon, who was also chairman of the Mellon Bank, DuPont's chief financial backer. Anslinger's relationship to Mellon wasn't just political, he was also married to Mellon's niece" (Hartsell). It doesn't take much to draw a connection between DuPont, Anslinger, and Mellon, and it's obvious that all of these groups, including Hearst, had strong motivation to prevent the growth of the hemp industry.
The reasoning behind DuPont, Anslinger, and Hearst was not for any moral or health related issues. They fought to prevent the growth of this new industry so they wouldn't go bankrupt. In fact, the American Medical Association tried to argue for the medical benefits of hemp. Marijuana is actually less dangerous than alcohol, cigarettes, and even most over-the-counter medicines or prescriptions. According to Francis J. Young, the DEA's administrative judge, "nearly all medicines have toxicm, potentially letal affects, but marijuana is not such a substance...Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within a supervised routine of medical care" (DEA Docket No. 86-22, 57). It is illogical then, for marijuana to be illegal in the United States when "alcohol poisoning is a significant cause of death in this country" and "approximately 400,000 premature deaths are attributed to cigarettes annually." Dr. Roger Pertwee, SEcretary of the International Cannabis Research Society states that as a recreational drug, "Marijuana compares favourably to nicotine, alcohol, and even caffeine." Under extreme amounts of alcohol a person will experience an "inability to stand or walk without help, stupor and near unconsciousness, lack of comprehension of what is seen or heard, shock, and breathing and heartbeat may stop." Even though these effects occur only under insane amounts of alcohol consumption, (.2-.5 BAL) the fact is smoking extreme amounts of marijuana will do nothing more than put you to sleep, whereas drinking excessive amounts of alcohol will kill you.
Trey: "Emissions intensity, or carbon intensity, refers to the amount of carbon released per unit of energy. In moving from wood to coal to natural gas, there are more hydrogen atoms to carbon atoms, therefore releasing more energy per carbon atom."
I believe you will find that coal is more carbon intense than wood.
" I believe you will find that coal is more carbon intense than wood"
probably related to energy density of the fuel.
morganovich: these are the same scientist that told us they were sure last time. they had "science" on their side. they gad consensus. unless we stopped burning fossil fuel, we were going to get another ice age.
Sorry, there never was such a consensus. And again, climatology has advanced considerably since the 1970s.
morganovich: the same guys that have swapped "global warming" out and "climate change" in because the world stopped warming?
Global warming refers to increasing mean global surface temperature. Climate change refers to changes in climate, particularly due to anthropogenic global warming.
morganovich: that's not evidence, it's an example of some of the worst data handling in the history of science.
And yet, the basic trend has been upheld by multiple, independent studies, including independent measures.
morganovich: so you tell me, how you you measure a 0.6 degree per century signal from stations with errors that high and get anything that could possibly be statistically significant? hint: you can't.
It is quite possible for multiple observations to provide a more accurate result than any individual measurement. That's basic statistics.
morganovich: has the world warmed since the 1850's? sure, absolutely. no question...
Gee whiz. After all that.
morganovich: warming does not prove agw.
Not in isolation. Warming could have many causes, many of which are cyclical.
So, the surface and troposphere have warmed over the last half century. What has the stratosphere done over the same period?
Zachriel: The survey that matters is the published research. Essentially all current research supports the basic theory.
VangelV: Which one? The 79 anonymous responses that are being touted as 98%? The survey that asked if the earth had warmed?
Read it again, "the published research".
VangelV: History is full of examples where the discipline that should have known best responded the worst.
Sure, but just pointing out that they laughed at someone doesn't tell us whether it was Fulton or Bozo.
VangelV: In the climate field we have Svensmark, who put forth a great theory that was ridiculed right until the empirical evidence showed that the proposed mechanism was valid and provided evidence in nature that fit the theory perfectly at all scales.
Most scientists agree that cosmic ray activity has had an historical effect on climate. However, climate and cosmic ray activity have diverged significantly in recent decades. There's obviously some other factor involved.
VangelV: We did have warming since the mid 1800s. That warming peaked in the 1930s. Since then we cooled until the 1970s and warmed until the latter part of the 1990s.
You're funny. That's exactly what the NOAA graph indicates.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
VangelV: Actually, I am very good at reading the graph. It shows a cyclical pattern while CO2 concentrations are going up at a fairly good clip.
Well, there's certainly cycles within the rising trend. The rising trend is obvious in the graph you provided. You could do the regression, but you can eyeball it quite easily. (For instance, figure the average in the first half of the graph, then figure the average in the second half of the graph.)
Also, that's why we showed you the same data without the known influences of volcanoes, ENSO and solar variations.
Foster & Rahmstorf, <a href="http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg>Global temperature evolution 1979–2010</a>, Environmental Research Letters 2011.
SteveH: Pollution appears to be self limiting as people desire a cleaner environment; even in the absence of regulation there would exist natural limits or scarcity of clean water and air which would make them objects of marrket processes.
That's clearly not the case. There's generally no market incentive to control one's pollution, and in all industrialized nations, it has required regulation to limit pollution.
gore is a scientific illiterate and a nitwit, but he's good at seeing which way the wind is blowing and getting ahead of these trends of nitwittery (and leaving the table before the bill comes on his prior failures).
Gore plays to the elitist lefties that watch CNBC. His problem is that he is not liked very well even among ordinary Democrats. Those negatives are a serious problem for the cause.
Competition from hemp would have easily driven the Hearst paper-manufacturing company out of business and significantly lowered the value of his land. Herer even suggests popularizing the term "marijuana" was a strategy Hearst used in order to create fear in the American public. "The first step in creating hysteria was to introduce the element of fear of the unknown by using a word that no one had ever heard of before... 'marijuana'" (ibid)....
I was always taught that the first thing you need to answer when looking at any political question is, cui bono? Once you know the pieces fall into place rather rapidly.
I believe you will find that coal is more carbon intense than wood.
Don't think so. Per unit of energy more CO2 is given off by wood burning than by coal. In turn, natural gas gives off less CO2 than coal. But that does not matter since CO2 is not a pollutant and has little to do with climate.
Sorry, there never was such a consensus. And again, climatology has advanced considerably since the 1970s.
Really? Then why is it that peer reviewed papers are exposed full of errors within hours of publication by a tiny group of amateurs who understand mathematics and numerical processing? Why was it that SM could spot the Harry problem in a few hours when Steig, who wrote the paper, spent months working with the data and the reviewers spent weeks checking it?
Global warming refers to increasing mean global surface temperature. Climate change refers to changes in climate, particularly due to anthropogenic global warming.
You are missing the point. When the temperatures stopped rising the IPCC went from talking about global warming to climate change.
And yet, the basic trend has been upheld by multiple, independent studies, including independent measures.
As expected when the reviews do not work with the original data and include the artificial warming signal added to the measurements.
It is quite possible for multiple observations to provide a more accurate result than any individual measurement. That's basic statistics.
No it isn't. When you have bad stations with large errors being used to 'correct' clean stations the error gets bigger.
Gee whiz. After all that.
The Little Ice Age was never a problem for the skeptics. It is the AGW frauds who claimed that it did not exist. And yes, when a period that is called an 'ice age' ends we expect things to warm up. Naturally!!!!
Not in isolation. Warming could have many causes, many of which are cyclical.
So, the surface and troposphere have warmed over the last half century. What has the stratosphere done over the same period?
LOL... Still on the stratosphere as proof angle. Well, this paper just falsified that AGW claim. I bring your attention to the last sentence, where we read that, "our findings suggest that Arctic PSC formation is connected to adiabatice cooling, i.e. dynamic effects rather than radiative cooling."
If you don't know what that means I explained it to you on another post.
Read it again, "the published research".
Which paper? Again!!! You make many stupid claims. I assume that is because you don't check much of the material that you write by looking at the original source material. You might want to give it a try.
Sure, but just pointing out that they laughed at someone doesn't tell us whether it was Fulton or Bozo.
That is a nice statement to hide behind, particularly when we cited the empirical evidence while you are citing political statements without any empirical support.
Most scientists agree that cosmic ray activity has had an historical effect on climate. However, climate and cosmic ray activity have diverged significantly in recent decades. There's obviously some other factor involved.
Wrong answer. They have not. You are thinking of a few bad papers by members of the team who did not even know what to look at. Svensmark talked about CRF in the lower atmosphere. They did not know what to look at to check. Fortunately, there is an easy way to check the effect and to look at the decadal correlation, and to verify it over the geological time frame.
Now that is a great theory. You have empirical evidence to test the effect over a period of a few days, decades, and millions of years. And the evidence holds for all of them. On the other hand, the evidence for CO2 is terrible. Not only did we see a divergence over short periods, the ice cores show that CO2 concentration change follows the temperature change because it is the effect, not the cause. As the man says, in your world shaking trees cause the wind.
You're funny. That's exactly what the NOAA graph indicates.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php
No, it does not. The data was 'adjusted' to make the 1930s appear a lot cooler than they were. Your team had not only done this for the US but also for other locations. I have provided several examples of such corruption of data before and have cited the artificial warming signal that creates the trend that you want us to believe is real after 1950.
VangelV: When the temperatures stopped rising the IPCC went from talking about global warming to climate change.
They talk about both, but global warming is well-established, so the important question for humans is how it will affect their climate.
Zachriel: And yet, the basic trend has been upheld by multiple, independent studies, including independent measures.
VangelV: As expected when the reviews do not work with the original data and include the artificial warming signal added to the measurements.
"Independent measures." Notably, you use these very same figures when they suit you.
Zachriel: It is quite possible for multiple observations to provide a more accurate result than any individual measurement. That's basic statistics.
VangelV: No it isn't.
Given random error,
SEM = s/sqrt(n), where
SEM is the standard error of the mean,
s is the sample standard deviation
n is the number of samples
VangelV: Well, this paper just falsified that AGW claim.
The authors would probably be somewhat surprised to find they falsified anthropogenic climate change. The finding concerning adiabatic cooling has been understood for more than a decade (Teitelbaum et al., 2001).
It also doesn't address the issue. It's not that the stratosphere is cold, but that it has cooled over time. The energy budget has been redistributed from the upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere.
VangelV: Which paper?
Papers. Oreskes, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science 2004. More recent papers continue the trend. There is virtually no research that undermines anthropogenic climate change. There is some research that nips at the edges of methodology, but little of that even.
VangelV: Fortunately, there is an easy way to check the effect and to look at the decadal correlation, and to verify it over the geological time frame.
Your graph proves the point. Take a look at the lower graph. They remove ENSO and volcanoes, which is reasonable. But they also remove the 0.14°C warming per decade. The fit is quite good demonstrating that the warming is due to other causes.
Zach, You are wrong about pollution. But you can't run an experiment in reverse. But here's a thought experiment. Pollution is mostly a result of industrial processes where the inputs are very cheap. When the real cost of those inputs rise one of two things happen more efficient use or a substitute is found. But in that process there is technological change that can reduce pollution. In steel production in the US you had market driven change that significantly reduced pollution and industry found a use for scrap steel.
But you still haven't answered my original question "what the hell is unrestrained and uninformed capitalism?" But then you are using the typical troll tactic of snipping and changing the subject and I don't expect a response.
re: pollution
...is one property owner creating waste and dumping it on other property owners....violating their "property rights".
They talk about both, but global warming is well-established, so the important question for humans is how it will affect their climate.
Well, the warming since the depths of the Little Ice age was very beneficial to humans and to animal life. But there is no warming today and the temperatures in the 'alarming' 1990s were not very high, even when compared to the 1930s.
"Independent measures." Notably, you use these very same figures when they suit you.
Independent means you use the original data, not the data sets that have had an artificial warming signature added to them.
Given random error,
SEM = s/sqrt(n), where
SEM is the standard error of the mean,
s is the sample standard deviation
n is the number of samples
When the good data samples are 'corrected' by using stations that have a lot of bias in them using more lousy numbers does not give a more accurate result.
The authors would probably be somewhat surprised to find they falsified anthropogenic climate change. The finding concerning adiabatic cooling has been understood for more than a decade (Teitelbaum et al., 2001).
It also doesn't address the issue. It's not that the stratosphere is cold, but that it has cooled over time. The energy budget has been redistributed from the upper atmosphere to the lower atmosphere.
If the hypothesis were right the cooling is correlated with the temperature of the tropospheric clouds. The warmer they are, the more radiation they have taken from the stratosphere. The experiment has falsified this hypothesis. The authors argue that the formation of polar stratospheric clouds is driven by adiabatic cooling, not the radiative imbalance that has failed to show up in any of the major studies looking for it.
As I showed above, the Abstract ends with, "our findings suggest that Arctic PSC formation is connected to adiabatic cooling, i.e. dynamic effects rather than radiative cooling." That is the opposite of what you are now trying to claim.
Papers. Oreskes, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science 2004. More recent papers continue the trend. There is virtually no research that undermines anthropogenic climate change. There is some research that nips at the edges of methodology, but little of that even.
A very good start. How many people were asked about AGW? How were they chosen? How many responded? And most importantly, what were they asked. We already know that Oreskes scholar search is flawed. In fact, I gave you more than 100 papers (out of thousands) that refute the AGW arguments that the team keeps citing.
Nobody has asked scientists what they think on the subject and gotten any decent data. Nobody who knows about science would even care because as I have shown, science is usually advanced when the consensus is wrong. So even if there were none, and there isn't, all it takes is one paper to prove it wrong. And on that front we have thousands.
Your graph proves the point. Take a look at the lower graph. They remove ENSO and volcanoes, which is reasonable. But they also remove the 0.14°C warming per decade. The fit is quite good demonstrating that the warming is due to other causes.
I suggest that you take a very good look at the literature again because you clearly have no clue what it is that you are posting about. As I said, the theory works on the geological, archeological, historical, and decadal scale while CO2 fails all of them.
zach-
you are arguing from ignorance.
it's clear because you are making all the wrong arguments.
1. consensus is irrelevant. proof is. the consensus you posit doe not exist, but even if it did, it would prove nothing.
2."
And yet, the basic trend has been upheld by multiple, independent studies, including independent measures. "
actually, no it hasn't. that's an absolute lie.
what is clear from numerous measurements is that there has been NO warming for over a decade.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2012/04/updated-charts.html
further, the warming of the last 75 years when you'd think human influence would have been greatest is statistically indistinguishable from the 75 years before that. oops. there goes you human attribution.
3. "t is quite possible for multiple observations to provide a more accurate result than any individual measurement. That's basic statistics. "
wow. no it's not. you either completely misunderstand or are willfully lying.
that is only true if error is random. if error is all in the same direction (warmer due to siting near machinery, urban areas, asphalt, etc, and that is very much the case) then it compounds, it does not cancel out. sorry zach, but you seem badly out of your depth here. look, i know ho this seems if you get your info from magazines, but they have no idea what they are talking about. also note: the NOAA was just caught lying again this week.
they have been lowering past temps to make the warming look greater now. they were caught RED HANDED just like east anglia. why would the managers of key temperature databases be reduced to fabricating data is the truth was on their side. come on man. open your eyes.
4. funny you should ask about the stratosphere (not that you seem to have any idea how that should relate as you do not specify upper or lower)
HE'S THE COUP DE GRAS AGW:
what you should really be asking about is the troposphere.
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/07/is-the-climate-science-debate-over-no-its-just-getting-very-very-interesting/
scroll down to about halfway.
you'll see 2 graphics, on showing what "greenhouse" (itself a stupid phrase) warming would look like, the other showing actual observations.
there are only 2 possible conclusions from that data.
1. awg theory is correct but that is not what is causing the warming.
2. agw theory is wrong.
which one makes you anxious to do destroy economic growth?
the evidence is in here and it's incredibly strong. agw is a farce. it's just a money train of mercenary scientist sucking up billion in grants and tryign to keep the gravy train going as long as they can.
their models have failed, their theories have been disproved, and yet they keep on because the money is too good and are clearly willing (as evidenced by the fact they refuse to release data and keep getting caught falsifying it when anyone gets any to check) to lie and cheat to keep it going.
folks with "science on their side" do not hide their data and falsify data and results.
that's the act of a charlatan, not a researcher.
look, i too was stunned. i believed in AGW when i first stared looking into it, just as you seem to. it took me months to finally be able to accept the size of the scam and just how little science there was. but it's just not there. the no agw case is SO much stronger and the evidence of agw largely non-existent and pure supposition and inference.
SteveH: But you can't run an experiment in reverse.
It's been repeated all over the world, under various political systems and cultures. The result has been the same. It requires political pressure and political action to bring polluters under control. It's nearly always cheaper to dump your untreated effluent into the river, meaning you have a competitive advantage over those who don't, and over those downstream.
SteveH: But you still haven't answered my original question "what the hell is unrestrained and uninformed capitalism?"
Thought the terms were clear. All modern economies have a number of restraints on capitalism, including the limitation of monopolies, product testing (especially food and drugs), pollution controls, and complex contract law. Uninformed capitalism means capitalism that either isn't aware of refuses to be aware of facts relevant to their activities, such as their effect on people downstream.
VangelV: But there is no warming today and the temperatures in the 'alarming' 1990s were not very high, even when compared to the 1930s.
The problem isn't the warming today, but the projected increases over the next century.
VangelV: When the good data samples are 'corrected' by using stations that have a lot of bias in them using more lousy numbers does not give a more accurate result.
That's right. Multiple samples do not correct for bias (though that is not what you said above). However, using a different methodology to crosscheck results does help reduce bias. In this case, surface measurements, radiosondes, and satellite all confirm the warming trend.
VangelV: If the hypothesis were right the cooling is correlated with the temperature of the tropospheric clouds.
Again, adiabatic cooling in the formation of polar stratospheric clouds has been known for more than a decade.
VangelV: The warmer they are, the more radiation they have taken from the stratosphere.
Fact: High clouds are colder than low clouds and therefore emit less heat energy. That polar stratospheric clouds require adiabatic cooling to form doesn't change this basic fact.
VangelV: How many people were asked about AGW?
None. It's not a survey of opinion, but a survey of scientific publications.
VangelV: I suggest that you take a very good look at the literature again
Not an argument, nor did you respond. It was YOUR citation. And it proved the point. They removed the 0.14°C warming per decade. The fit is quite good demonstrating that the warming is due to other causes.
(Notably, you cite the same data everyone else does with regards to the troposphere.)
Zach, It's never good over the long run to kill your customers. So, now you are saying that simply the presence of externalities justifies regulation? But then you confuse contracts with regulation. It is always possible for individuals to sue a polluter. How do you know in your infinite wisdom that markets wouldn't have self-corrected? Pasteurized milk was fought tooth and nail by the entrenched regulatory bureaucracy of New York.
Zachriel: And yet, the basic trend has been upheld by multiple, independent studies, including independent measures.
morganovich: actually, no it hasn't.
We've posted this graph before showing multiple measures.
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
morganovich: what is clear from numerous measurements is that there has been NO warming for over a decade.
A decade is not generally long enough to determine the trend, but if you remove ENSO from the UAH data, then the trend is still there.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg
Zachriel: It is quite possible for multiple observations to provide a more accurate result than any individual measurement. That's basic statistics.
morganovich: wow. no it's not.
morganovich: that is only true if error is random.
So it is possible, contrary to what you just said, and what was said above. Yes, it assumes random error, not bias. Bias is reduced by using independent measures, which were provided above.
As for the tropical tropospheric hotspot, it's not a signature of global warming, but a consequent of tropical surface warming and the lapse rate.
Santer et al., Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, International Journal of Climatology 2008.
I have to side with morganovich here. Thanks, BTW, for being willing to "out" these guys based on firm proof (or lack thereof), and having done so in a fallacy-free way.
Back when I took undergrad courses (several of them) in what they then called meteorology, the notion of what's today called "climate change" or "global warming/cooling" and "climatology" didn't exist. Fact was, back in the early 70s, there weren't a lot of jobs in meteorology as once-expensive technologies like satellite photography & Doppler radar got to be routine.
The weathermen seemed to morph into climatologists over the years, and found that the only way to maintain interest was not improved prediction of even short-range weather; rather to make people lose sleep about the long term effects of man's supposed dominance over nature (HA! You really think so? Think tsunamis, hurricanes, etc and then tell me how "dominant" we arrogant little humans are).
Get some useful idiots who call themselves journalists to report on your predictions and claim "consensus", and you can mount not only a lobbying campaign, but also a terrorism campaign targeting the average person, who wouldn't know the difference between an adiabatic process and an acrobatic performance.
Worried people will spend (other people's) money on a "solution", hence all the guys who used to be "weathermen" were now all lobbying governments to pay attention to their alarmism. Oh, and don't forget to keep funding those research grants!
What followed was predictable: rigged data. And when you asked for their data, you got a resounding "NO WAY" from them. They knew that any half-trained statistician with a computer and a copy of SAS could blow the lid off of their many lies over the years.
Want a computer model? I'll write one for you. What do you want it to "prove"? Sorry, but that's how corrupted this so-called "science" is. Highly politicized.
And only then should we consider what Kyoto means to Third World countries: not only are they given a pass on meeting CO2 emission goals (they're "developing economies", after all, and even they know this is economic suicide); but there are also crushing transfer payments made to certain Third World countries who have supposedly suffered because of the invented greed and pollution caused by those of the First World.
The whole thing stinks of One World Government. I rejoice that voices of reason and protest are being heard. And irony of all ironies: the same country from which all this crap started is the only one (really?) on the planet conformant with the Copenhagen accord.
SteveH: It is always possible for individuals to sue a polluter.
If you lived in an ideal world, it might be possible, but the facts are that the average parent with a sick child may not know or be able to prove scientifically that a particular illness or proportion of illness is due to pollution. Science may only provided statistical support, and not individualized harm. Then considering that the individualized harm may be negligible in terms of the legal resources of a large industrial polluter. Sorry, but that simply doesn't work in the real world.
Perhaps you could argue that the polluter should keep their pollution off other people's land, air and water. However, some give and take is required in the modern world, as there is no industry without some level of exhaust. That's why the solutions are always political, not market-based.
SteveH: How do you know in your infinite wisdom that markets wouldn't have self-corrected?
Because there's no market incentive for those upstream to stop dumping into the river.
zach-
and i have shown you repeatedly that the data you are using has been tampered with.
further, you are using a data graft, which is the way liars create change. there was no satellite data before 1979. yet your "charts" go back further, just as mann grafted thermometer data onto proxies.
your "data" is not data at all. it's a mess of grafted together info from all manner of sources that you are pretending has data integrity.
your data supports the "the data is a mess" argument, not the "it's good data" one.
no one would even consider using economic data grafted like that.
if you add in enso, most of the warming since 1945 goes away too.
that's a nonsense argument. the only good world data we have starts in 1979 and as such, has been warm enso for the entire time until about 3 years ago.
the ocean is not warming.
and the "10 years is too short" argument is crap. the models predicted otherwise.
frankly, 100 years is too short. all we have done since 1850 is come back from an incredibly cold time caused by a quiescent sun (the little ice age driven by the maunder minimum etc) and rejoin the downtrend we were already in. over any time frame over about 300 years, temps are in a downtrend going all the way back to the holocene optimum circa 8000 years ago.
we are in a intergalcial in a deepening ace age. in terms of the last 500 million years, we are in the coldest 10% of temps. this ice age began when the isthmus of panama closed and the great oceans could no longer intermingle equatorial. it's very rare for it to be cold enough for their to be ice at both poles and a polar continent ensures temps will stay low.
bias is NOT removed using these measures. the NOAA has never even tried to measure it. and grafting together series does NOT reduce error, it massively magnifies it.
finally, i note you are silent on the troposphere.
the fact is, that kills the whole hypothesis. agw is NOT happening. if it were, we'd have a tropospheric hotspot.
read lindzen on this.
if the warming of the last 150 years were driven by co2 we would expect this hotspot. we would also expect more warming post 1945 than int he years before it.
neither are true.
agw is fiction, not science.
The problem isn't the warming today, but the projected increases over the next century.
You mean the projected cooling, don't you? After all, even former AGW alarmists are now talking about a few decades of cooling as solar activity continues to decline.
That's right. Multiple samples do not correct for bias (though that is not what you said above). However, using a different methodology to crosscheck results does help reduce bias. In this case, surface measurements, radiosondes, and satellite all confirm the warming trend.
That is exactly what I said above. You have many stations that are biased to the high side by up to 5C and a few decent stations with long histories away from artificial sources of heat that show cooing trends. When you 'correct' the good stations to agree with those that have a warming bias you are increasing the error, not reducing it. I have given you dozens of examples where the data keepers have doctored the actual measurements by adding an artificial warming signal to the actual data. The fact that when you analyze the records you find evidence of that artificial warming signal is not a surprize. (And not an indication that things have warmed since the 1930s.)
Again, adiabatic cooling in the formation of polar stratospheric clouds has been known for more than a decade.
But the warmers went with a radiative imbalance as the major driver instead. And the research falsified that hypothesis. The cooling is caused by mechanical work being done due to changes in air pressures, not a 'blanket' of CO2 in the mid troposphere.
Note that we have already talked about the missing equatorial mid troposphere hotspot before. And that the ARGO data also falsifies the radiative imbalance hypothesis.
None. It's not a survey of opinion, but a survey of scientific publications.
Oreskes had no clue what she was talking about. Her 'research' was a predetermined publicity stunt that ignored hundreds of papers that falsified the claims made by the IPCC. And note again that science is about evidence, not groupthink. You have yet to provide any EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that HUMAN EMISSIONS OF CO2 are a MATERIAL DRIVER OF TEMPERATURE TREND CHANGES.
If that evidence were available Mann and Hansen would not resort to data manipulation and outright fraud.
95% of "atmospheric heat retention (global warming)" is by water vapor. Leaves 5% for everything else. Of the DRY gasses, nitrogen is 78% and oxygen 21%. Co2 comprises (by AGW inflated data) 0.04% of the DRY gasses. Man's contribution of co2 is 3%, nature is 97%. DO THE MATH. 0.05 x 0.0004 x 0.03 = 0.00006% of "global warming" caused by man's co2. Not mentioned is the fact that the scale is logarithmic, it takes a HUGE increase in co2 just to have a doubling of effect (due to co2). The UN is behind this fraud; it wants the power to tax. The carbon tax is to steal from predominantly white countries and give to predominantly brown countries. Now, which group would be behind such a thing?
Z: "Uninformed capitalism means capitalism that either isn't aware of refuses to be aware of facts relevant to their activities, such as their effect on people downstream."
Capitalism has awareness? Who knew?
Not an argument, nor did you respond. It was YOUR citation. And it proved the point. They removed the 0.14°C warming per decade. The fit is quite good demonstrating that the warming is due to other causes.
The reference shows that when CRF counts increase temperatures go down and when CRF counts fall temperatures go up. There is no such relationship between CO2 and temperature, which is why the alarmists always choose plug in factors that try to suggest a relationship that does not exist because we know that changes in CO2 levels is the effect, not the cause of temperature trend changes.
Note how the relationship holds up over geological time. Inconveniently for your side is the fact that we have gone through periods of equatorial glaciation when CO2 levels were ten times the current level. Your models suggest that would never happen because the Earth would go through a runaway phase thanks to all of the positive feedback that the IPCC imagines exists contrary to the evidence.
also note:
every surface reading in you list is thermometer based.
they all use the same thermometers that all have the same urban heat island issues and the same dramatic coverage limitations, particularly all the rural stations lost in 80-90's when over half of all surface temp stations were eliminated.
the satellite surface temps do NOT show most of that warming and the GISS, NOAA, and hadley have been repeatedly caught faking and fiddling their data/
you want a fun chart, try this one:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/ushcn-adjustments.jpg
the uhcn is actually trying to argue that stations are more RURAL than 50 years ago. the adjustments are most of the trend.
note that the NOAA calls a station at an airport "rural".
this is a much bigger deal that you think. temps are measured not as a daily average but as the average of max+min. thus, radiating asphalt that raises the min is a bid deal, but far bigger is that one time a truck parks near it with the engine on of airplane exhaust goes that way. 2 minutes of that can up the whole day by degrees.
the NOAA has tried to whitewash this claiming rural show no difference, but that's just testament of how broken their definition of "rural" is.
as i showed you before, 90% of their stations do not meet their own siting guidelines and they have never even tried to survey them.
then they get caught falsifying data.
and then you want to trust them?
good luck with that.
Z: "Papers. Oreskes, The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change, Science 2004."
LOL!!
Oreskes?!?!? You MUST be kidding.
Are you really not aware of the problems with her little "Google Search" ?
Isn't it you AGW types that criticize skeptical scientists for not being qualified as "climate scientists" - whatever that is - and yet you're still putting forward a history teacher with a search engine as a source of serious information?
That's beyond belief.
dothemath-
more glaring still is that all the IPCC models use a positive feedback to temps from water vapor. this is where they get all their warming, not from CO2.
the problem? the data says the feedback is negative, not positive.
leaving aside the for a moment that a climate as stable as earth's could possibly be dominated by positive feedback (a situation so rare in nature as to be all but non existant on earth) there is now very clear evidence that the relationship is strongly negative.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/03/water-vapor-not-co2-controls-climate.html
morganovich: and i have shown you repeatedly that the data you are using has been tampered with.
Right. Thousands of scientists, working in different countries and within different cultures, are all conspiring together. They have not only tampered with the surface data, but the radiosonde data, and the satellite data. They've even gotten to VangelV who cited UAH in the Svensmark graph.
morganovich: the ocean is not warming.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html
But, of course, the oceanographers are also in on the conspiracy.
morganovich: the models predicted otherwise.
Well, no. The models predict large variations on short time scales.
" morganovich: and i have shown you repeatedly that the data you are using has been tampered with.
Right. Thousands of scientists, working in different countries and within different cultures, are all conspiring together."
yup. that's the only way the "AGW is a hoax" narrative can hold up.
you have to believe that there is a worldwide conspiracy not only scientists but governments.
VangelV: After all, even former AGW alarmists are now talking about a few decades of cooling as solar activity continues to decline.
Um, no. This is just another instance of reading your preconceived conclusions into the second-hand reports. The conclusion was a cooling of about 0.08 °C, not nearly enough to offset the 2.5 °C due to anthropogenic warming.
VangelV: That is exactly what I said above.
Actually, you said it was not possible for multiple observations to provide a more accurate result than any individual measurement.
VangelV: You have many stations that are biased ...
Yet, multiple studies have determined that the analysis of a warming trend is correct. More important, independent measures, such as radiosonde and satellite, confirm the trend.
VangelV: The cooling is caused by mechanical work being done due to changes in air pressures, not a 'blanket' of CO2 in the mid troposphere.
You are still confusing polar stratospheric cloud formation with global stratospheric cooling.
VangelV: You have yet to provide any EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that HUMAN EMISSIONS OF CO2 are a MATERIAL DRIVER OF TEMPERATURE TREND CHANGES.
We have, but you reject that scientists have been able to determine global temperature anomalies.
VangelV: The reference shows that when CRF counts increase temperatures go down and when CRF counts fall temperatures go up.
Yes, temperature goes up and down with solar activity. But it doesn't account for the warming trend. If it did, then they wouldn't have removed the trend to make the data fit. Duh.
Ron H: Are you really not aware of the problems with her little "Google Search" ?
Um, you apparently didn't read the paper.
Ron H: Isn't it you AGW types that criticize skeptical scientists for not being qualified as "climate scientists" - whatever that is - and yet you're still putting forward a history teacher with a search engine as a source of serious information?
Oreskes wasn't making a claim about or study of climate, but a literature review.
Zach, Privatize the river and its natural services. It works in all common pool resource systems even the ocean. Ever hear of the fencing of the commons? There is an entire literature on this idea. Environmental regulations seek to internalize to the firm the cost of pollution which in theory drives innovation but what would drive it sooner and better is private ownership of large swaths of the natural world. Objections have been that transaction costs would be too high but if lawsuits succeeded then concern for another's private property would be automatically factored into the decisions of the firm and the need for lawsuits would diminish. But then we diverge from the point that capitalism will lead to the best outcomes when property rights are well defined. It is all about negative rights not positive ones.
zach-
in tha last decade, oceans have cooled.
http://climatechange.imva.info/cooling/cooling-oceans
note that that is as far back as we have any good data. before agro there was NO direct measurement. the satellite gave us some since 1979, but data before that is so thin as to be meaningless.
this is not a consipracy larry, it's called "data".
"
Well, no. The models predict large variations on short time scales."
no they don't.
that's pure revisionism now that they have failed. have you ever even looked at the models themselves? it would appear not.
i note that gain, you duck the issue of no troposhperic hotspot.
then you try to hide behind an imiganiry consensus.
oreskes was so thoroughly debunked i cannot believe you would cite it.
http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm
it was a deliberately biased study.
consensus is a political argument, not a scientific one.
there is not a single pice of valid data showing AGW to be true.
CO2 alone CANNOT drive much warming at these levels. no one argue that. it's well known to be physically impossible.
it's an ln function. impact from increased concentration decreases exponentially.
even the ipcc admits this.
their claims on warming are all based on feedbacks.
the notion that earth climate which has been staggeringly stable, varying less in 3 billion years as a global average than most places do summer to winter and many do day to night, is dominated by positive feedback is absurd.
you literally need to be a scientific illiterate to believe that.
the key feedback is water vapor. the models claim it has a positive sign. all the evidence is that it is negative.
this DESTROYS the models.
worse, they all leave out the effects of solar wind which greatly amplifies the solar signal. solar wind blocks galactic rays. galactic rays ionize the upper atmosphere and promote high cloud formation, blocking heat.
thus, it is not just a rise in solar outpout that matters, but also the amplification of such by reduced cloud cover.
it is this missing input that leave the models with excess heat to explain and leads to hubristic inference about "we don't know what it is so it must me CO2", and absurd basis for opinion as it presupposed that the rest of the model is perfect.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ocean-heat.gif
these models over estimated gains in ocean heat by 93%.
there were worse on atmosphere.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ocean-heat.gif
hansen predicted over a degree of warming.
we got about 0.1 degrees.
seriously, have you ever looked at the track record of these predictions?
it's abysmal.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/sea-level.gif
sea level has risen at a steady pace since 1850 when the maunder minimum ended. humans we not producing much co2 then. so where is the co2 signal? nowhere.
try reading this:
it lays out the basic shape of the argument in laymans terms and avoids any real technical stuff:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/
Um, no. This is just another instance of reading your preconceived conclusions into the second-hand reports. The conclusion was a cooling of about 0.08 °C, not nearly enough to offset the 2.5 °C due to anthropogenic warming.
We haven't had 2.5°C of anthropogenic warming. In fact, even if we attribute all of the warming to CO2, we only get about 0.7°C. Given the logarithmic effect, a doubling would only mean 1.2°C or so. There is no crisis and many of the former alarmists are now abandoning ship. People already know that we get warmer than average conditions when we have an El Niño and cooler conditions when we have La Niña. Actually, having seen what cold winters mean they no longer have trouble with the idea of a warmer climate and prefer it to the alternative. But they won't get it. With solar activity in decline the current cooling trend will last another decade or more and we expect to see temperatures that are near the same level as the 1980s.
Actually, you said it was not possible for multiple observations to provide a more accurate result than any individual measurement.
I meant the multiple observations coming from the climate network. That is a clear fact and you know it.
You are still confusing polar stratospheric cloud formation with global stratospheric cooling.
I am not confusing anything. I just showed you that the empirical data has falsified the radiative imbalance hypothesis for the third time. First we had the missing mid-tropospheric hot spot. Next we had the missing ocean heat storage. Now we have the failure of the stratosphere story.
" Thousands of scientists, working in different countries and within different cultures, are all conspiring together. They have not only tampered with the surface data, but the radiosonde data, and the satellite data. "
that's about the only way the AGW "hoax" holds together as "truth".
NOAA, NASA, EPA...university scientists and their counterparts in England , France, Australia, Russia, around the world.....
all of them have to be "in on it".
that's a bridge too far.....for me
I think those who are not scientists could take a close look at just about any field of science and end up with the same skepticism.
and heck knows how many times scientists themselves have gone back and forth on wide ranging issues..but when we're talking about something that could only happen with the acquiescence of scientists around the world... it starts to sound far out to me.
SteveH: Privatize the river and its natural services. It works in all common pool resource systems even the ocean.
Giving people some sort of ownership stake can be a valuable mechanism, yes, but again, that is normally done through the political process. There have to be rules in place to protect those downstream, and rules to prevent monopolization of vital resources. A simple example would be someone upstream taking all the water while dumping their wastes. Another would be a race to exploit the last resource during times of economic stress. What normally happens is a political division of the resource.
" Privatize the river "
who does this? elective govt?
morganovich: note that that is as far back as we have any good data. before agro there was NO direct measurement.
Surface measurements date back decades. ARGO has not been in operation long enough to determine the trend in isolation, but is not the only available data. http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
See also, Lyman et al., Robust warming of the global upper ocean, Nature 2010.
morganovich: no they don't.
Where did you get that idea. ENSO is just one of many cyclical features of climate.
morganovich: i note that gain, you duck the issue of no troposhperic hotspot.
We responded above.
Zachriel: As for the tropical tropospheric hotspot, it's not a signature of global warming, but a consequent of tropical surface warming and the lapse rate.
Santer et al., Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, International Journal of Climatology 2008.
morganovich: oreskes was so thoroughly debunked i cannot believe you would cite it.
Your article doesn't say it was debunked, but updates it. Was the paper even published? Perhaps you can provide a proper citation and we'll take a look.
morganovich: the notion that earth climate which has been staggeringly stable, varying less in 3 billion years as a global average than most places do summer to winter and many do day to night, is dominated by positive feedback is absurd.
There is substantial evidence that much of the Earth was frozen about 650 million years ago. The feedback mechanisms are very interesting. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere was weathering. When the Earth reached a tipping point, the albedo of the snow caused the ice sheets to spread. This slowed the weathering. Eventually, outgassing increased the greenhouse effect, causing the cycle to reverse. As more ice melted, more land was exposed, albedo decreased, causing a faster melt. The seasaw is caused by the interaction of countervailing influences, a hallmark of complex systems.
Even if not that extreme, an ice sheet covering New England, or a sea level rise that wipes out much of Florida and Bangladesh would not be something people would want to see. Pointing to climate extremes over the last three billion years is, er, cold comfort.
VangelV: I meant the multiple observations coming from the climate network. That is a clear fact and you know it.
Okay, but that's not what you said, and why we questioned your comment several times. Pointing to a high error rate in individual measurements does not preclude a lower error rate in the mean.
Larry G: that's about the only way the AGW "hoax" holds together as "truth".
Don't forget the oceanographers!
Oh geez, We auction spectrum we lease ocean drilling rights. Privatizing natural systems will ensure their proper stewardship and improve their services. The enclosing of the commons in England is the best example. Livestock production improved. The health of the fields improved. If someone pollutes your property you have the right to sue. The same would be true of the river, stream or lake. If someone owned the colorado river you could be sure that water from it would be priced much differently. As the cost of Colorado river water increased some clever person might invent a new desalinatization technique that was viable and able to scale.
One of the arguments for regulated monopolies like electricity production and distribution is that it eliminates duplicative networks but what if this competition actually lowered costs and encouraged innovation. It is sad that we went the other route and never found out. My hunch is that we would have a smarter grid today than we have and more choices in production and distribution. What if the crony capitalism associated with nuclear power were eliminated along with the NRC and a whole host of regulations would we have Thorium and breeder reactors and modular reactors? I think we would. And they would be very safe.
Zach's unflinching belief in the evil of man is disheartening for it is only government angels that come to his rescue. Government's purpose is to provide for the common defense and protect negative rights or only those rights that don't require someone giving up something for someone else to have some other thing.
" Government's purpose is to provide for the common defense and protect negative rights or only those rights that don't require someone giving up something for someone else to have some other thing. "
if you pollute others property and you are one of but dozens or hundred that do that, how do you "sue"?
isn't the role of govt to "protect" property rights so they do not have to sue to preserve them?
Not all property rights violations are criminal violations so they are civil matters. Even if there were criminal violations and a conviction government action gives you no guarantee to be made whole.
morganovich: the models predicted otherwise.
Z: "Well, no. The models predict large variations on short time scales."
And of course, short time scales is all we have any actual measurements for.
M: "the ocean is not warming"
Z: "http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-surface-temp.html"
Hmm. More NOAA data. Haven't we determined that they make stuff up?
Does that drop in SST in the 1940s of .5 degrees in 1 or 2 years trouble you at all? Where did that heat go?
Do you really believe that the Average Global SST - as measured by drawing buckets of water onboard ships until the middle of the 20th Century provides an accurate picture of world wide ocean tenperatures within 0.7degrees, the width of the error bars on your chart?
NOAA, NASA, EPA...university scientists and their counterparts in England , France, Australia, Russia, around the world.....
all of them have to be "in on it".
Follow the money my ignorant friend. And look at the examples.
Here is the NOAA adding an artificial warming signal
Here is NASA's adjustment of the Reykjavik data. Here is the original and official data.
The EPA? Well, we read, On September 28, the EPA’s own Inspector General found that the agency used a flawed and inadequate assessment of climate science to establish its endangerment finding.
Australian 'scientists' are doing their own imitation of Hansen's adjustments.
NZ 'scientists' are playing the same game.
So yes Larry, there are no legit Hockey Sticks and the 'scientists' are adding artificial warming signals to the actual measurements. And yes, when you look at the adjusted data you see a warming trend that comes from adding that artificial warming signal. And no Larry, that is not how science is supposed to work. Which is why many of the former AGW supporters have abandoned the sinking ship.
who decides? civil or criminal?
without govt, there'd be no law at all, right?
if dozens of people pollute, degrade, poison the air and water that you use who decides whether it's civil or criminal?
So then you'd have to go sue dozens of polluters to recover damages?
See this is why we have regulations.
We started out the "it's your job to sue" to " if you pollute, you have to have a permit and the govt decides what you can pollute and how much".
Each substance has to be evaluated to see how dangerous it is (or not)and in what concentration is safe.
I'm not sure how this would work as "privatization" unless you essentially contracted it out but still had the govt determine criteria.
so it's a global conspiracy?
say it....
without govt, there'd be no law at all, right?
Your ignorance is showing again. Customs and common laws require no government. Merchant Law and the Law of the Sea were developed without the help of government. Why is it that you know less about law than my 13-year-old yet you persist in posting the same old crap over and over again?
so it's a global conspiracy?
It is not much of a conspiracy and is certainly not global. Most people do not believe the lies any longer and many of the prominent supporters left the sinking ship a while ago.
Ron H: "Are you really not aware of the problems with her little "Google Search" ?"
Z: "Um, you apparently didn't read the paper."
Do you mean this one page comment in which she claims a consensus after searching the ISI data base for the words "global climate change"?
Ron H: "Isn't it you AGW types that criticize skeptical scientists for not being qualified as "climate scientists" - whatever that is - and yet you're still putting forward a history teacher with a search engine as a source of serious information?"
Z: "Oreskes wasn't making a claim about or study of climate, but a literature review."
She claimed a consensus of climate scientists after searching a database for keywords. Her faulty conclusion, based on nothing, became a rallying cry for AGW believers everywhere.
Larry, I think that regulation is the easy way out. A Coasian solution might appear more costly but markets have a way of working through complex problems, like the steam engine, the internal combustion engine and the Hollerith Tabulating Machine (which predates his contract with the census bureau). If government only provided the framework for enforcement of contracts and property rights the world would be a better place. Government has a role to play but it is limited. Our constitution provides for orderly bankruptcy which ensures that property rights are respected. Obama bailed out the auto companies and the unions at the expense of bondholders a clear violation of the constitution since an orderly bankruptcy was not allowed. I support private ownership of roads, sewers, water supplies and yes pants factories. Could you imagine a government run pants factory? I don't want to contemplate it. Do you want the government to always take on market risk? If not then you would be in favor of ending all entitlement programs, central bank activity, tax expenditures, subsidies, crony capitalism and preferential regulations which are all forms of risk assumption. In short half of all cabinet departments would be abandoned, the FED would cease to exist. In short economic growth would explode upward, inflation would be non-existent and personal freedom would at last be secure.
A Coasian solution might appear more costly but markets have a way of working through complex problems, like the steam engine, the internal combustion engine and the Hollerith Tabulating Machine (which predates his contract with the census bureau).
I have a problem with Coase. At least the left is honest in their statist belief and do not believe in property rights. Coase attacks property rights by claiming that he is in favour of economic freedom. Let us stick to using property rights as the basis for our solutions.
M: "the notion that earth climate which has been staggeringly stable, varying less in 3 billion years as a global average than most places do summer to winter and many do day to night, is dominated by positive feedback is absurd."
Z: "There is substantial evidence that much of the Earth was frozen about 650 million years ago. The feedback mechanisms are very interesting. CO2 is removed from the atmosphere was weathering. When the Earth reached a tipping point, the albedo of the snow caused the ice sheets to spread. This slowed the weathering. Eventually, outgassing increased the greenhouse effect, causing the cycle to reverse. As more ice melted, more land was exposed, albedo decreased, causing a faster melt. The seasaw is caused by the interaction of countervailing influences, a hallmark of complex systems.
Even if not that extreme, an ice sheet covering New England, or a sea level rise that wipes out much of Florida and Bangladesh would not be something people would want to see. Pointing to climate extremes over the last three billion years is, er, cold comfort."
Did you somehow miss the point about the absurdity of assuming positive feedbacks?
re: Coasian , Merchant Law et al
are we talking about "theory" here or practical, real-life, existing approaches ?
I would presume in a world - as a de facto "lab" for all approaches that if the ones espoused as better than govt were viable.. they would not only have survived but be the primary method.
what we know instead is that pollution is generated by property owners and harms other property owners and any kind of agreement among them constitutes a de-facto "governance" - an in turn agreed-to specifications or rules - "regulations".
Folks like Van argue that you don't need no stinking govt (and then other times bleats about violation the Constitution - which is govt also).
as soon as you have an "agreement", you have governance.
but you still don't have universal acceptance of the "rules" and some will continue to pollute no matter what the others agree to.
That's when "govt" starts to dictate and "enforce".
and when it comes to pollution - thats how it gets controlled and if you don't do that - then there will always be those who will pollute no matter what others say or what others have agreed to.
re: global conspiracies
is it or is it not a cabal of scientists around the world that have doctored data and foisted it on others?
yes or no?
be honest enough to admit what you believe, don't flinch.
are we talking about "theory" here or practical, real-life, existing approaches ?
We are talking about real life. History shows us that we do not need government to have functioning courts and if you want to see where an anti-property Cosean argument leads look no further than the Kelo v. City of New London case. The Cosean judge acts as a central planner who only looks at future GDP change as a guide. To him/her there is no aggressor and no history as guide.
Folks like Van argue that you don't need no stinking govt (and then other times bleats about violation the Constitution - which is govt also).
I can't speak for others but I have expressed views about the Constitution that are very similar to Spooners. That said, I have argued if you idiots consider it valid then you should insist that the government abide by it. I know that a man of your limited ability to reason may not understand but there is nothing that I can do about that. As I have written, my 13-year-old seems to know more about legal systems and government than you do.
is it or is it not a cabal of scientists around the world that have doctored data and foisted it on others?
Governments around the world have handed out more than $100 billion to researchers hoping to justify carbon taxes by finding that man is driving climate change. They are getting what they paid for. That includes all those examples of data manipulation that we referenced.
SteveH: We auction spectrum we lease ocean drilling rights.
Just to clarify, who is this "we" Kemosabe?
Ron H: And of course, short time scales is all we have any actual measurements for.
Oddly enough, climatologists think there were Ice Ages with giant ice sheets covering much of the land, and periods when it was much warmer than today with sea levels rising to cover much of the current coast line. But what do they know.
Ron H: Haven't we determined that they make stuff up?
Um, no. They're the ones who actually go out and measure things. Other organizations do the same, and help crosscheck the data.
Ron H: Does that drop in SST in the 1940s of .5 degrees in 1 or 2 years trouble you at all?
It's not matched by land temperatures, so the discontinuity is thought to be an observational artifact. See Thompson et al, A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature, Nature 2008.
Ron H: Do you really believe that the Average Global SST - as measured by drawing buckets of water onboard ships until the middle of the 20th Century provides an accurate picture of world wide ocean tenperatures within 0.7degrees, the width of the error bars on your chart?
Do we need to review how to reduce variance in the error of a mean? Or do you contend that scientists are unaware of the problems of teasing reliable information out of less than perfect observations?
Ron H: She claimed a consensus of climate scientists after searching a database for keywords.
She claimed a scientific consensus. There is a distinction.
Ron H: Her faulty conclusion, based on nothing, became a rallying cry for AGW believers everywhere.
You can read the journals yourself. There's just very little skeptical research. Skeptics sometimes publish questioning methodology or tangential finding, but very little in terms of new research that supports their view. The skeptical viewpoint appears scientifically sterile and yields no fruit.
Ron H: Did you somehow miss the point about the absurdity of assuming positive feedbacks?
Um, we showed that feedbacks can cause extremes in climate, from ice caps that cover most of the continents to no ice caps at all with resulting high sea levels. That doesn't mean the world is ready to experience quite that level of climate change, but people and the ecosystem depend on a relatively stable environment. The current rate of change is extreme on a historical scale.
VangelV: Merchant Law and the Law of the Sea were developed without the help of government.
It developed within the context of law, and it didn't always prevent open conflict. But, yes. People can and will devise systems to resolve conflict when centralized government is ineffective or absent. People still shake hands, even today (though when money is involved, most people also want a written contract valid in their jurisdiction).
It developed within the context of law, and it didn't always prevent open conflict. But, yes. People can and will devise systems to resolve conflict when centralized government is ineffective or absent. People still shake hands, even today (though when money is involved, most people also want a written contract valid in their jurisdiction).
People like you and Larry are very confused when it comes to issues like money and law. You think that they come from government when history shows that they are created by civil society. Society and government are not the same thing.
"We are talking about real life. History shows us that we do not need government to have functioning courts ..."
are you kidding? who makes people obey courts?
" That said, I have argued if you idiots consider it valid then you should insist that the government abide by it. I know that a man of your limited ability to reason may not understand but there is nothing that I can do about that. As I have written, my 13-year-old seems to know more about legal systems and government than you do. "
ha ha ha...you are as infantile as they come... give you a serious question and all you can do is call names...
You've blathered repeatedly about the "Constitution"....and the "tyranny" and all that ROT.
the bottom line is that any kind of a "court" has to have the ability to enforce it's rulings or people will just ignore it's rulings.
do you not understand reality?
VangelV: Society and government are not the same thing.
Yes, that's correct. Funny how you argue even when we are agreeing with you.
" is it or is it not a cabal of scientists around the world that have doctored data and foisted it on others?
Governments around the world have handed out more than $100 billion to researchers hoping to justify carbon taxes by finding that man is driving climate change. They are getting what they paid for. That includes all those examples of data manipulation that we referenced. "
so is it a conspiracy?
no name-calling now..just honestly answer.
" People like you and Larry are very confused when it comes to issues like money and law. You think that they come from government when history shows that they are created by civil society. Society and government are not the same thing. "
Oh indeed they are not.
Have you ever heard someone tell a court - "I do not recognize nor accept your jurisdiction"?
so what do you do in "civil" society when one or many refuse to abide by a court's decisions?
how does that work?
let me guess.. the "tyranny of the majority" will "enforce" it, right?
are you kidding? who makes people obey courts?
The sureties who guarantee the judgments. Surely you have the ability to go to the library or order books from Amazon. Why not try educating yourself a little. I know that my 13-year old is looking for tutoring jobs and he certainly knows a lot more about customs law than you do.
"Governments around the world have handed out more than $100 billion to researchers hoping to justify carbon taxes by finding that man is driving climate change. They are getting what they paid for. That includes all those examples of data manipulation that we referenced. "
so is it a conspiracy?
As I said, it is human nature. When you pay me to tell you how smart you are I will tell you that you are smart even though I know better.
Have you ever heard someone tell a court - "I do not recognize nor accept your jurisdiction"?
so what do you do in "civil" society when one or many refuse to abide by a court's decisions?
how does that work?
let me guess.. the "tyranny of the majority" will "enforce" it, right?
Not at all. To function in a civil society you need to have a surety that will ensure that you keep your word. If you refuse they will compensate the victim and will collect from you. If you make a run for it you will simply be declared an outlaw and will become fair game for anyone. Like I wrote before, why not do a bit of reading before you show off your ignornace yet again?
nice work
Oh Zach you wound me...:)
Larry,
We are social creatures but the origins of government are rooted in property rights, think protecting food supplies, personal property like cooking utensils, etc. Good government protects property rights and provides a legal framework for resolving conflicts. If we deviate from this primacy and allow government to gain more authority than it naturally deserves then we will continually lose our rights by tiny cuts of regulation and taxation. Failure to trust markets is the primary failure of government.
Zach, The "we" of course is the citizens of the United States of America. How we transfer ownership might be a Coasian distribution. As a citizen I would expect my government represenatives to act without any fealty except to my and my fellow citizens' best interests. But then I am ever optimistic.
so the "surety" performs what role?
if someone decides they are not going to be governed by a court, what good is a "surety"?
when you have a number of people who agree to a surety and decisions from a court - you actually have a governance and you know.. it's often run by majority vote.
recognize also that extraction/consumption of resources is not the same as pollution.
If you extracted resources from your property and nothing left your property... that's totally different than if any of your activities, to include extraction but to also include other activities - like manufacturing - if those activities generated waste, refuse, etc that then left your property and affected others properties - that is pollution.
You can have a bunch of people agree to not pollute but if the arrangement is voluntary, you cannot force agreement from others...
unless you use force....or threaten force....
right? so "governance" is an agreement to abide by rules ... AND to force those who won't agree to also abide or leave.
Show me some places in the world that DON'T work like this that are not anarchy.
Ron H: "And of course, short time scales is all we have any actual measurements for."
Z: "Oddly enough, climatologists think there were Ice Ages with giant ice sheets covering much of the land, and periods when it was much warmer than today with sea levels rising to cover much of the current coast line. But what do they know."
What they know is that none of their conclusions are based on measurements.
Ron H: "Haven't we determined that they make stuff up?"
Z: "Um, no. They're the ones who actually go out and measure things. Other organizations do the same, and help crosscheck the data."
Other organizations? How many?
Be careful. The correct answer is an extremely small number. And, you might consider carefully what you claim about that crosschecking.
Ron H: "Does that drop in SST in the 1940s of .5 degrees in 1 or 2 years trouble you at all?"
"It's not matched by land temperatures, so the discontinuity is thought to be an observational artifact."
And since you are presenting a graph that includes that observational artifact more than 60 years later, apparently the cause is still unknown, but you expect others to accept the accuracy of the rest. Good luck.
Z: "Do we need to review how to reduce variance in the error of a mean? Or do you contend that scientists are unaware of the problems of teasing reliable information out of less than perfect observations?"
Our problem isn't with the treatment of the data, but the extreme paucity and inherent uncertainty of the data itself.
Ron H: "She claimed a consensus of climate scientists after searching a database for keywords."
Z: "She claimed a scientific consensus. There is a distinction."
Based on a faulty premise. And still you defend it. Amazing.
Ron H: "Her faulty conclusion, based on nothing, became a rallying cry for AGW believers everywhere."
Z: "You can read the journals yourself. There's just very little skeptical research. Skeptics sometimes publish questioning methodology or tangential finding, but very little in terms of new research that supports their view. The skeptical viewpoint appears scientifically sterile and yields no fruit."
Falsification is sufficient. There's no reason to spend much effort saying "It just ain't so".
Ron H: "Did you somehow miss the point about the absurdity of assuming positive feedbacks?"
Z: "Um, we showed that feedbacks can cause extremes in climate, from ice caps that cover most of the continents to no ice caps at all with resulting high sea levels."
We will take that to be a "yes, we missed it".
V: "The sureties who guarantee the judgments. Surely you have the ability to go to the library or order books from Amazon. Why not try educating yourself a little. I know that my 13-year old is looking for tutoring jobs and he certainly knows a lot more about customs law than you do."
Do you see what I mean about it being hard to resist? :)
I think if you are going to introduce it that you should define it or provide a reference.
it's a cockamamie idea and you know it so now you're playing games.
we're deep into LA LA LAND here.
Ron H: What they know is that none of their conclusions are based on measurements.
They're all based on measurements. What you probably mean is they can't measure ancient temperatures directly. They can't even photograph the extent of the glaciers. Yet, scientists are quite certain that glaciers at one time covered much of the continents.
Ron H: Other organizations?
Nearly every major country has climate data collection, not just locally, but regionally and globally. Just in the U.S., there are hundreds of local and regional data collection organizations. Many universities have climate research programs. The most advanced data collection is now done nationally.
Ron H: And since you are presenting a graph that includes that observational artifact more than 60 years later, apparently the cause is still unknown, but you expect others to accept the accuracy of the rest.
We provided you the latest research on the matter. Can't make you read it.
Ron H: Did you somehow miss the point about the absurdity of assuming positive feedbacks?
Positive and negative feedbacks occur.
Zach, The "we" of course is the citizens of the United States of America. How we transfer ownership might be a Coasian distribution.
The US was founded on the idea of natural rights. The Coasian distribution does not depend on property rights. Why intelligent individuals who claim to support individual rights talk up Case is a puzzle that I cannot figure out. Even my little kids knew that the Kelo decision was unjust but it was the classic example of where Coase leads.
As a citizen I would expect my government represenatives to act without any fealty except to my and my fellow citizens' best interests. But then I am ever optimistic.
It seems to me that any belief that government representatives would act in the interest of citizens ignores human nature. Ultimately freedom depends on the power given to those that govern, not their character. Which is why we need to have the smallest government possible and to depend on the private delivery of goods and services.
so the "surety" performs what role?
Get a dictionary. Or better yet, read and learn.
if someone decides they are not going to be governed by a court, what good is a "surety"?
The victim is compensated. That is certainly good. Like I said, you need to shed your ignorance.
when you have a number of people who agree to a surety and decisions from a court - you actually have a governance and you know.. it's often run by majority vote.
Well, clearly you don't know anything. You sure you don't want to be tutored by my 13-year-old on the subject? He has a very good grasp on things and has a lot to teach you?
You can have a bunch of people agree to not pollute but if the arrangement is voluntary, you cannot force agreement from others...
Sure you can. Nobody has the right to do harm to you or your property. There have been thousands of rulings on this in Common Law courts in the English speaking world.
@SteveH, VangelV, re: property rights, pollution, "sureties", governance, regulation.
If you have no government and you have no agreements then individual property owners have demonstrated over time that they will generate waste on their own properties and then dispose on it through air and water and even physically dumping on other properties.
Any kine of agreement between two or more property owners with respect to what is acceptable to "pollute" and what is not and how much...when, where, and damages paid or not....
ALL of that implies some level of agreement to rules that apply to all parties that agree.
That is Governance guys and it is REGULATION.
but even then it still does not apply to any others who do not agree and refuse to be part of any agreement.
What do you do when 90% agree and 10% go right on polluting others properties?
How do you enforce an "agreement" that is not agreed to by all parties?
basically ... you set up "laws of the land" - that everyone within the boundaries vote on and then the folks who vote in favor - enforce that agreement on everyone even those who do not agree.
that's where laws and regulations come from.
they come from property owners who want to force other property owners to restrict their activities to stay within the boundaries of the land they own and to not "use" other property owners properties.
Be careful. The correct answer is an extremely small number. And, you might consider carefully what you claim about that crosschecking.
Actually, we have a recent example about how the peer review process is useless. After paying a climate activits and a research team more than $300K to look at Australian proxies the IPCC and the Australian government got a paper that concluded that current temperatures are 0.08C warmer than they were 1000 years ago.
The activist did not want to let anyone look at the data and her exact methodology but independent reviews by skeptics that used other available data immediately spotted a serious methodological problem. The team has thrown in the towel and has put publication on hold. Of course, the media that hyped up the hockey stick has yet to retract their previous stories and the public has to fin out through the internet and independent sources that they were lied to yet again. I wonder how Zach and the other useful idiots will respond to or ignore yet another case of outright deception.
" You can have a bunch of people agree to not pollute but if the arrangement is voluntary, you cannot force agreement from others...
Sure you can. Nobody has the right to do harm to you or your property. There have been thousands of rulings on this in Common Law courts in the English speaking world. "
who sets the rules and who enforces them on people who do not accept those rules?
I don't think you really know what Common Law really was or is, guy.
it implies a ruling authority... at the least...
why would people listen to and obey that authority rather than any other that claimed to be a similar authority?
you're totally off in LA LA Land here...
you're basically re-working history to suit your own beliefs.
VangelV: Get a dictionary. Or better yet, read and learn.
It's worth a short explanation of your understanding as it is integral to your position.
surety, one who has become legally liable for the debt, default, or failure in duty of another.
VangelV: Nobody has the right to do harm to you or your property.
We've responded to this several times. It's hard if not impossible to prove particularized harm; the harm. Though individually detrimental, may be financially small compared to the legal resources of large polluters. Thinking that a poor mother with a child suffering from asthma aggravated by pollution has the resources to sue the local factory is simply not a realistic position. Some pollution is necessary for development, hence political compromises are required. History has shown that industries will continue to pollute unless political pressure is used.
Nearly every major country has climate data collection, not just locally, but regionally and globally. Just in the U.S., there are hundreds of local and regional data collection organizations. Many universities have climate research programs. The most advanced data collection is now done nationally.
There is no issue with the temperature measurements other than the UHI bias and a few other factors that can easily be handled. The issue is with adding an artificial warming signal to the original.
http://tinyurl.com/88ljeqe
http://tinyurl.com/4q5l3h8
http://tinyurl.com/7wl9w27
If you have no government and you have no agreements then individual property owners have demonstrated over time that they will generate waste on their own properties and then dispose on it through air and water and even physically dumping on other properties.
Actually, they can't. That is the point about customs law or common law. You don't need a state to protect rights because the systems were set up by society to protect individual rights.
Your ignorance is showing again.
It's worth a short explanation of your understanding as it is integral to your position.
surety, one who has become legally liable for the debt, default, or failure in duty of another.
I have explained to our idiot friend on a number of threads and provided him with dozens of references that would help him understand the concept and the history of the system that I am describing. He refuses to learn so I am minimizing wasting my time.
We've responded to this several times. It's hard if not impossible to prove particularized harm; the harm.
If there is no possibility of proving harm then you really have to consider if there is harm. Customs laws have a clear standard that is actually pretty easy to meet. If you can't meet it much of the harm is imagined rather than real.
Though individually detrimental, may be financially small compared to the legal resources of large polluters. Thinking that a poor mother with a child suffering from asthma aggravated by pollution has the resources to sue the local factory is simply not a realistic position.
But is is. Customs and common law courts are very efficient and effective. You are wrongfully thinking in a situation where you have our type of courts. No sane person would choose that type of system and without government mandates the system would quickly disappear.
Some pollution is necessary for development, hence political compromises are required. History has shown that industries will continue to pollute unless political pressure is used.
You are thinking of the government system that allows harm to be done by industry without compensation. That is an entirely different argument.
" Actually, they can't. That is the point about customs law or common law. You don't need a state to protect rights because the systems were set up by society to protect individual rights."
who enforces common law Mr. Loon?
WHO set us these "systems" Mr. Loon?
Who DECIDED what are individual rights and set standards to protect them and who enforces those "rules".
You are as loony as can be and are teaching your son to be like you?
Lord!
VangelV: The issue is with adding an artificial warming signal to the original.
The USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/
VangelV: I have explained to our idiot friend on a number of threads and provided him with dozens of references that would help him understand the concept and the history of the system that I am describing.
Not everyone reading the thread has read those previous comments.
VangelV: If there is no possibility of proving harm then you really have to consider if there is harm.
Sure, it should be considered, but science can often say that there is harm without being able to connect it to individual cases. For instance, air pollution may lead to an increase in respiratory illness, without being able to connect to this particular kid.
And that's the problem. These people have a right to clean air. When adjudication is ineffective, as it often is, they will seek other means to enforce their rights.
Z: "They're all based on measurements. What you probably mean is they can't measure ancient temperatures directly. They can't even photograph the extent of the glaciers. Yet, scientists are quite certain that glaciers at one time covered much of the continents."
Word games with the meaning of the word "measurement"?
Z: "Nearly every major country has climate data collection, not just locally, but regionally and globally. Just in the U.S., there are hundreds of local and regional data collection organizations. Many universities have climate research programs. The most advanced data collection is now done nationally."
The temperature data collected prior to satelites is questionable, some of the raw data has been "lost", half of the data is from 2% of the Earth's surface, and no amount of additional manipulation can make it more believable.
Z: "We provided you the latest research on the matter. Can't make you read it."
We read it, but didn't find it convincing. More data manipulation by known liars and frauds attempting to imply a level of accuracy in data that is seriously incomplete, and can't possibly be as accurate as claimed.
Z: "Positive and negative feedbacks occur."
That didn't address the point that negative feedbacks predominate, but it's a step in the right direction.
At some point you might want to consider abandoning this proven scam to protect what little credibility you might still have elsewhere.
"Actually, we have a recent example about how the peer review process is useless. After paying a climate activits and a research team more than $300K to look at Australian proxies the IPCC and the Australian government got a paper that concluded that current temperatures are 0.08C warmer than they were 1000 years ago. "
.08C? OMG! Now THAT'S seriously worrisome! LOL
It appears the activist didn't expect much opposition.
Gotta love this great line in David Karoly's letter to SM: "An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study".
Z: "It's hard if not impossible to prove particularized harm; the harm. Though individually detrimental, may be financially small compared to the legal resources of large polluters. Thinking that a poor mother with a child suffering from asthma aggravated by pollution has the resources to sue the local factory is simply not a realistic position."
Perhaps the local factory isn't the cause of her problem.
But, if it is, her job should be easy. You are ignoring the ubiquitous sharks that circle business entities looking for opportunities to relieve them of their earnings.
Z: "Not everyone reading the thread has read those previous comments."
The person you think deserves better explanations has certainly read them. Anyone else need only ask, and the explanation will be forthcoming.
who enforces common law Mr. Loon?
WHO set us these "systems" Mr. Loon?
Who DECIDED what are individual rights and set standards to protect them and who enforces those "rules".
You are as loony as can be and are teaching your son to be like you?
You need to read and learn. Over the years you have been given dozens of references that would help you. The fact that you prefer to remain ignorant is telling.
the only way ANY court or ANY law is enforceable to those who do not recognize the legitimacy of the court or the law is what?
Force?
No law and no court has any control over people who refuse to be subject to that court and that law.
the issue is always jurisdiction.
who is subject to the law?
Not everyone reading the thread has read those previous comments.
I have provided many links before. Here are a few that explain how it works.
http://tinyurl.com/7h94oxh
http://tinyurl.com/7xmmsbo
http://tinyurl.com/2cltg4w
http://tinyurl.com/d73ssla
http://tinyurl.com/cxhq4sn
http://tinyurl.com/7jqfpe4
http://tinyurl.com/6wfcho4
the only way ANY court or ANY law is enforceable to those who do not recognize the legitimacy of the court or the law is what?
Force?
No law and no court has any control over people who refuse to be subject to that court and that law.
the issue is always jurisdiction.
who is subject to the law?
As I said, you need to learn. And figure out the difference between society and government.
property rights are self-defined in a society without govt.
In a non-govt society, you can CHOOSE to be subject to Common Law if you wish but you can also choose to NOT be subject to it.
Take the Native Americans in America who chose to have their own laws and did not subscribe to US GOvt laws.
Even among themselves they had different ideas of "property rights".
You can follow this around the world.
It's different in different places.
What you've done is adopted ONE of their models but there are many models - not just one.
no matter what model you choose, there are issues involving jurisdiction and who is subject to what "laws" or not.
Only when a government establishes it's territory - it's boundaries - does the concept of who is subject to what laws comes into play because the govt asserts control and authority and maintains it with force.
A model that does not use force obviously will not have complete control or be able to enforce laws that others reject as applying to them.
the default condition on earth is the nation-state... not a "society".
Ron H: Word games with the meaning of the word "measurement"?
An essential aspect of the scientific method is that we can infer things we can't directly observe, whether Einstein's explanation of Brownian Motion or the composition of stars.
Ron H: The temperature data collected prior to satelites is questionable, some of the raw data has been "lost", half of the data is from 2% of the Earth's surface, and no amount of additional manipulation can make it more believable.
You're saying scientists can't tease any information out of the available albeit imperfect data, that we know less of the Earth's temperature in 1900 CE when people used thermometers all over the globe than they do of 1000 CE when we infer a Medieval Warming Period?
Ron H: More data manipulation by known liars and frauds a ...
Well, that resolves all issues in your own mind, while offering no alternative explanation of the data.
Sure. The entire scientific community is in on the conspiracy. Not just those that measure surface temperatures, but those that use satellites. Not just the climatologists, but the oceanographers. Not just the Americans, but the Indians.
Ron H: Perhaps the local factory isn't the cause of her problem.
Perhaps not. That's the problem of showing particularized harm. You can show that the factory is emitting pollution and that the pollution is correlated with increases in respiratory illness, but you can't necessary show that it is the cause of this particular child's illness. That means the factory can be shown to causes thousands of illnesses or even deaths, and not be held to account through the courts. Furthermore, they will pick off their opponents in detail, concentrating huge legal resources and public vilification against those who oppose them. So people will organize politically, even if you find that abhorrent.
Larry G: In a non-govt society, you can CHOOSE to be subject to Common Law if you wish but you can also choose to NOT be subject to it.
Another point is that, for good or ill, governments have replaced all less organized systems. That doesn't mean common law, civil society and other societal structures don't still exist—they do—, but they coexist with government, which itself operates at many different levels within society.
Larry G: In a non-govt society, you can CHOOSE to be subject to Common Law if you wish but you can also choose to NOT be subject to it.
Yes, you can choose to live in a cave away from everyone and try a life of full self sufficiency. But if you want to be a part of society and have protection for your property then you have to be a part of the system.
As I said, your ignorance is showing up in spades time after time after time. Yet you refuse to learn.
Another point is that, for good or ill, governments have replaced all less organized systems. That doesn't mean common law, civil society and other societal structures don't still exist—they do—, but they coexist with government, which itself operates at many different levels within society.
This is true. Government, which is an organization of thugs who rule for their own benefit, has taken over. The debate is not about that but about the need for government to provide services in the first place. The answer to that is no.
" Another point is that, for good or ill, governments have replaced all less organized systems. That doesn't mean common law, civil society and other societal structures don't still exist—they do—, but they coexist with government, which itself operates at many different levels within society."
but these guys ARGUE that it's POSSIBLE to not have a Govt or it's possible for society to have their own self-styled "governance" even though - no such critter exists in the entire world.
We have thousands of social and religious organizations, each with it's own style/flavor of governance ranging from top-down dictatorial to everyone votes on everything but the flaw in this reasoning goes back to the following concepts:
1. - property rights
2. - territory
3. - jurisdiction.
no social or religious group has the ability to decide/arbitrate conflicts BETWEEN social group or across geography or in areas where they don't have jurisdiction.
Van provided a reference to Celtic "Law" but the reference shows two important things :
1. - that everyone had to comply with what was decided by some....
2. - then the whole thing went away when England asserted nation-state preemption.
"Larry G: In a non-govt society, you can CHOOSE to be subject to Common Law if you wish but you can also choose to NOT be subject to it.
Yes, you can choose to live in a cave away from everyone and try a life of full self sufficiency. But if you want to be a part of society and have protection for your property then you have to be a part of the system. "
when means you have no choice but to abide by what others decide sometimes - the tyranny - right?
"As I said, your ignorance is showing up in spades time after time after time. Yet you refuse to learn."
my "ignorance" is nothing compared to your idiocy. Anyone who "explains" things in terms of global conspiracies and brags that they teach their kids.. has some serious issues in my view.
"Another point is that, for good or ill, governments have replaced all less organized systems. That doesn't mean common law, civil society and other societal structures don't still exist—they do—, but they coexist with government, which itself operates at many different levels within society.
This is true. Government, which is an organization of thugs who rule for their own benefit, has taken over. The debate is not about that but about the need for government to provide services in the first place. The answer to that is no."
Government is no more or less "thuggish" than many societies that you claim can replace govt.
Govt rules the same way that societies do - by majority - and usually and theoretically to benefit of it's members and if the members have the "right" to elect their leaders they have more "rights" than societies that cannot.
when means you have no choice but to abide by what others decide sometimes - the tyranny - right?
Not at all. The system is voluntary.
If you want to deal with others you need to be able to show that your promises are good. One way to do that is to belong to a mutual society that backs up your promises. If you choose to live alone that is your business. If you want to deal with others then you need to assure them that your word will be kept.
Tyranny would be forcing people to deal with individuals who choose to live alone and present a risk that could easily be avoided.
As I said, your ignorance is astounding. But you are in luck. My son pointed out this piece on The Brehon Code. Unfortunately, it was written a four days ago, shortly after his presentation so he could not use it. But it might help you understand. If you know how to read.
" Not at all. The system is voluntary.
If you want to deal with others you need to be able to show that your promises are good. One way to do that is to belong to a mutual society that backs up your promises. If you choose to live alone that is your business. If you want to deal with others then you need to assure them that your word will be kept."
ha ha ha... talk about dreaming! If you "choose" to pollute the water and air... nothing happens to you?
"Tyranny would be forcing people to deal with individuals who choose to live alone and present a risk that could easily be avoided."
Tyranny is not forcing a polluter not to pollute?
"As I said, your ignorance is astounding. But you are in luck. My son pointed out this piece on The Brehon Code. Unfortunately, it was written a four days ago, shortly after his presentation so he could not use it. But it might help you understand. If you know how to read."
My "ignorance" pales in comparison to your worldview of things and your son is headed for a world that is far different than what he has been taught and will likely end up like you and explain things you don't like in terms of name calling those you disagree with and global conspiracies for things you cannot accept.
ha ha ha... talk about dreaming! If you "choose" to pollute the water and air... nothing happens to you?
When you violate the property rights of others you can be sure that something will happen to you. The only way to avoid being free from obligation from obeying the rules is to withdraw completely. That means that your pollution stays on your property.
My "ignorance" pales in comparison to your worldview of things and your son is headed for a world that is far different than what he has been taught and will likely end up like you and explain things you don't like in terms of name calling those you disagree with and global conspiracies for things you cannot accept.
You are mixed up. I know that we live in a world where governments make serfs of most individuals. I actually make a good living by taking advantage of the opportunities that this system provides for those that can see reality as it is. The argument here is about the need government to provide protection of rights and courts. I have shown you that people did fine without government courts or police and that private delivery of legal services and protection is superior to government monopolies. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge that fact.
" free from obligation from obeying the rules is to withdraw completely. That means that your pollution stays on your property. "
how so?
what stops him from doing that?
are you not talking about the use of force - the same nasty thing you say govt does?
why is force in a social construct any better/different than govt force if in both cases - a majority vote is used?
in fact, what is the difference between a social construct governance and a govt "governance" if both operate by votes and the threat of force - anyhow?
for all practical purposes, they operate very similarly when it comes to getting compliance with the "rules".
how so?
what stops him from doing that?
are you not talking about the use of force - the same nasty thing you say govt does?
The court stops him. A person who has been harmed has every right to sue in front an independent judge suitable to the mutual aid societies that the two individuals belong to. The person being sued has every right to defend himself in front of the independent judge. If the judge rules against the polluter, which will be the case if harm is done or the polluter has not homesteaded the process that created the pollution, the person who did the harm must compensate the victim.
This is simple enough that even someone as dull as you can figure it out. The system has been described countless of times in the references provided to you so you should have enough information to understand the argument. Yet you persist in postings that show ignorance and muddled thinking.
Since it it unlikely that you are as stupid as you seem to be you must be playing games to get others to waste their time.
Z: "An essential aspect of the scientific method is that we can infer things we can't directly observe, whether Einstein's explanation of Brownian Motion or the composition of stars."
Nice try, but we were busy defining the word "measurements"
Ron H: "What they know is that none of their conclusions are based on measurements."
Z: "They're all based on measurements. "
Z: "You're saying scientists can't tease any information out of the available albeit imperfect data..."
Oh, It's done all the time, repeatedly, by a small group that won't even now admit they're wrong, in the face of overwhelming evidence, but...(repaste)
"The temperature data collected prior to satellites is questionable, some of the raw data has been "lost", half of the data is from 2% of the Earth's surface, and no amount of additional manipulation can make it more believable."
Z: "...that we know less of the Earth's temperature in 1900 CE when people used thermometers all over the globe than they do of 1000 CE when we infer a Medieval Warming Period?"
Strawman much?
Ron H: "More data manipulation by known liars and frauds a ..."
Z: "Well, that resolves all issues in your own mind, while offering no alternative explanation of the data.Sure. The entire scientific community is in on the conspiracy. Not just those that measure surface temperatures, but those that use satellites. Not just the climatologists, but the oceanographers. Not just the Americans, but the Indians."
Strawman much? The "entire scientific community" isn't involved here, only a small group of names who have proven to be liars and frauds, so when those names appear on a paper, it is difficult to take it seriously.
Ron H: "Perhaps the local factory isn't the cause of her problem."
Z: "Perhaps not. That's the problem of showing particularized harm. You can show that the factory is emitting pollution and that the pollution is correlated with increases in respiratory illness, but you can't necessary show that it is the cause of this particular child's illness. That means the factory can be shown to causes thousands of illnesses or even deaths, and not be held to account through the courts. Furthermore, they will pick off their opponents in detail, concentrating huge legal resources and public vilification against those who oppose them."
You are overlooking the attractiveness of deep pockets to lawyers, the ease of filing a class action suit which costs nothing up front to join, and the tendency of defendants in such suits to seek the lowest cost solution whether it be settlement or mitigation, or both, even if they believe the allegations are false. You are also ignoring the fact that those who operate the polluting factory most likely live within range of that pollution, and don't want their own children's health compromised. You paint an overly simple picture and offer an overly simple solution.
Z: "So people will organize politically, even if you find that abhorrent."
We have no problem with people organizing voluntarily for any reason, one of which might be a class action suit. Our objection is to forcing solutions that may not fit, by people who have little understanding of the problem, and that often have unintended consequences that cause more harm than good.
Reread morganovich's comments on this thread, as he has debunked each of your ridiculous claims.
Or better yet, just say you believe the Hockey Stick is an accurate representation of historic and recent global temperature trends, and we will quit wasting our time on you.
why is force in a social construct any better/different than govt force if in both cases - a majority vote is used?
Majority vote has nothing to do with this. And in your example it is the polluter who initiates force. I am not arguing for Tolstoyan pacifism here. I simply argue that an individual has the right to defend himself and his property against aggression.
in fact, what is the difference between a social construct governance and a govt "governance" if both operate by votes and the threat of force - anyhow?
They don't operate the same way moron. In one you give the government a monopoly on the initiation of force. In the other force is only permitted to defend individuals and their property against aggressors.
for all practical purposes, they operate very similarly when it comes to getting compliance with the "rules".
You really can't be this slow or this stupid. There is a huge difference between defending individuals and their property and being able to initiate force against individuals and their property. Customs laws are concerned with the former. Our current system permits the latter.
Stop posting for a few minutes to read and figure out exactly what the issues really are.
"The court stops him."
how does the court stop him? by telling him to stop or else?
"A person who has been harmed has every right to sue in front an independent judge suitable to the mutual aid societies that the two individuals belong to."
and what keeps the "offender" from saying he disagrees and won't comply?
"The person being sued has every right to defend himself in front of the independent judge. If the judge rules against the polluter, which will be the case if harm is done or the polluter has not homesteaded the process that created the pollution, the person who did the harm must compensate the victim. "
how is he forced to do that?
"This is simple enough that even someone as dull as you can figure it out."
well I'm asking you questions and so far your responses are either to run away or name call.
"The system has been described countless of times in the references provided to you so you should have enough information to understand the argument. Yet you persist in postings that show ignorance and muddled thinking.
Since it it unlikely that you are as stupid as you seem to be you must be playing games to get others to waste their time."
nope. I am asking you some pretty relevant questions.
Courts don't "force" people to do thing.
A judgement can sit unsatisfied until it is enforced. How do courts "enforce" it's judgments that are rejected ?
why is force in a social construct any better/different than govt force if in both cases - a majority vote is used?
"Majority vote has nothing to do with this. And in your example it is the polluter who initiates force. I am not arguing for Tolstoyan pacifism here. I simply argue that an individual has the right to defend himself and his property against aggression."
who decides what pollution is or is not? If a majority of the property owners disagree with the judge's idea what happens?
"They don't operate the same way moron. In one you give the government a monopoly on the initiation of force. In the other force is only permitted to defend individuals and their property against aggressors."
who decides that? don't the property owners ultimately decide for the group as a whole? Do you think if they all agree and the judge does not that the judge stays?
what kind of moron are you ?
"You really can't be this slow or this stupid. There is a huge difference between defending individuals and their property and being able to initiate force against individuals and their property. Customs laws are concerned with the former. Our current system permits the latter."
Any group of property owners will do the same.
"Stop posting for a few minutes to read and figure out exactly what the issues really are."
I have guy. You're out in LA LA LAND on this... you keep insisting one line of though without ever really thinking about it yourself.
what is to keep any group of property owners from acting any different than a group of voters with a govt?
at the end of the day if the property owners agree on what pollution is or is not.. that's how the court will rule or they will get a new court.
what makes you think the "court" itself is not subject to what the property owners want?
can you think?
how does the court stop him? by telling him to stop or else?
By ruling against him. The fraternal or mutual aid society ensures that the victim is compensated and that further violations stop. If the person fails to comply he is ruled an outlaw and has no rights in society. S/he can be killed or enslaved without fear of retribution from anyone.
Note that the incentive is for fraternal societies to get their own members to behave because misfits or idiots increase the costs for everyone else because compensating victims can be very expensive. People who continue to misbehave are thrown out and lose their 'coverage'. As a result they quickly hit hard times because few will do business with them. Such individuals usually lose their freedom and become indentured servants dependent on employers. Or worse.
If you had bothered reading the material you would understand just how stupid your postings are.
" By ruling against him. The fraternal or mutual aid society ensures that the victim is compensated and that further violations stop. If the person fails to comply he is ruled an outlaw and has no rights in society. S/he can be killed or enslaved without fear of retribution from anyone."
so who kills him? does the court have police to do this or do the other property owners have a separate court to decide what to do about him?
"Note that the incentive is for fraternal societies to get their own members to behave because misfits or idiots increase the costs for everyone else because compensating victims can be very expensive. People who continue to misbehave are thrown out and lose their 'coverage'. As a result they quickly hit hard times because few will do business with them. Such individuals usually lose their freedom and become indentured servants dependent on employers. Or worse. "
if the property owners are split on an issue and 1/2 of them refuse to comply?
Slavery? Who carries out that sentence..does the judge get on a horse and ride out to carry out the sentence?
"If you had bothered reading the material you would understand just how stupid your postings are."
I've read it guy and these are my questions and you are failing miserably to deal with them.
all you have is name calling ...
is this what you teach your kid?
V: ""If you had bothered reading the material you would understand just how stupid your postings are."
You may have meant to write:
"If you had bothered reading and comprehending the material you would understand just how stupid your postings are."
Your pen pal may have trouble with the second part.
VangelV: Government, which is an organization of thugs who rule for their own benefit, has taken over.
Most people consider government to be representative of their interests, at least to some extent.
VangelV: The debate is not about that but about the need for government to provide services in the first place. The answer to that is no.
Apparently, anarchy is much less effective, or it wouldn't have succumbed virtually everywhere, in all cultures. Democracy is the modern attempt by people to harness the power of government to their own ends.
VangelV: but these guys ARGUE that it's POSSIBLE to not have a Govt or it's possible for society to have their own self-styled "governance" even though - no such critter exists in the entire world.
People work out arrangements even in the absence of what would be recognizable as central government. However, these systems are considered primitive in that they either organize into a central government, succumb to those that have, or simply remain isolated outside the developed world.
VangelV: The only way to avoid being free from obligation from obeying the rules is to withdraw completely. That means that your pollution stays on your property.
Someone upstream doesn't choose to be part of your anarchistic commune. They dam the river and dump their sewage downstream. They don't need your cooperation as they have the water.
" Someone upstream doesn't choose to be part of your anarchistic commune. They dam the river and dump their sewage downstream. They don't need your cooperation as they have the water. "
Well, Van says in that case, you round up a posse and go kill him.
You know.. that ole "force" response.
see, govt is much more civil. They'd send some deputies up there and throw him in the clink and sell his land for damages.
Van seems to prefer the vigilante approach.
Ron H: a small group of names who have proven to be liars and frauds
The scientists who have spent years collecting the data, working across multiple disciplines, disregarding the evidence from surface stations, radiosondes, satellites. Sure.
Larry G: Well, Van says in that case, you round up a posse and go kill him.
Sure you do. And those that can organize a military, political and economic response most effectively, will usually win. And that means central authority. So you will have a government. The question is who will control that government.
"militia" is an interesting word in this context...
Z: "The scientists who have spent years collecting the data, working across multiple disciplines, disregarding the evidence from surface stations, radiosondes, satellites. Sure."
Read this.
so who kills him? does the court have police to do this or do the other property owners have a separate court to decide what to do about him?
so who kills him? does the court have police to do this or do the other property owners have a separate court to decide what to do about him?
What part of 'why don't you read' don't you understand my idiot friend? And who is talking about killing someone as compensation for the victim or his/her family?
if the property owners are split on an issue and 1/2 of them refuse to comply?
It does not matter. Damage must be paid for and victims have to be compensated by the surety system. Why don't you read?
Slavery? Who carries out that sentence..does the judge get on a horse and ride out to carry out the sentence?
Same answer dumbdumb.
"so who kills him? does the court have police to do this or do the other property owners have a separate court to decide what to do about him?
What part of 'why don't you read' don't you understand my idiot friend? And who is talking about killing someone as compensation for the victim or his/her family? "
hmmm.. I could have sworn you said this:
"If the person fails to comply he is ruled an outlaw and has no rights in society. S/he can be killed or enslaved without fear of retribution from anyone."
WHO enforces the ruling of the court?
WHO does that and what do they do if the property owner refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the court or the other property owners?
"if the property owners are split on an issue and 1/2 of them refuse to comply?
It does not matter. Damage must be paid for and victims have to be compensated by the surety system. Why don't you read?"
who decides that? I am reading Mr. Loon but it does not make good sense! Do the split property owners get to decide if they get rid of the judge?
why would they cede their own votes to someone else to force them to do something they do not agree with?
"Slavery? Who carries out that sentence..does the judge get on a horse and ride out to carry out the sentence?
Same answer dumbdumb."
same DUMB ANSWER? Didn't you say kill/enslave as a response to a rebellious property owner?
in other words, the response will be to use force ?
isn't that the same response that you say you hate from big bad govt?
I'm not seeing much difference between your "voluntary" association and the use of force against those who won't volunteer or agree - and the bigbad govt that you so hate.
I think you are pretty confused here.
I've read it guy and these are my questions and you are failing miserably to deal with them.
all you have is name calling ...
is this what you teach your kid?
My kid reads and understands so no, I do not deal with him the same way. But you are an adult who is either far too stupid or too stubborn to understand. I have no time to waste on you when the references cited explain exactly how the system works. The van Notten book does a wonderful job. Finbar Feehan-Fitzgerald explains how this works less than ten paragraphs into his essay. The answers are right there if you are smart enough to understand them.
The scientists who have spent years collecting the data, working across multiple disciplines, disregarding the evidence from surface stations, radiosondes, satellites. Sure.
No. I ma sure he means the scientists who rewrote history to hide the facts. The real data shows no warming over the past 80 years. It is only after the data keepers add an artificial warming signal that the trend appears.
Sure you do. And those that can organize a military, political and economic response most effectively, will usually win. And that means central authority. So you will have a government. The question is who will control that government.
It seems that you don't read very well either.
The Brehon Code formed a great body of civil, military, and criminal law. It regulated the various ranks of society, from the "king" down to the slave, and enumerated their several rights and privileges. There were minute rules for the management of property, for the several industries — building, brewing, mills, watercourses, fishing weirs, bees and honey — for distress or seizure of goods, for tithes, trespass, and evidence. The relations of landlord and tenant, the fees of professional men — doctors, judges, teachers, builders, artificers — the mutual duties of father and son, of foster parents and foster children, of master and servant, are all carefully regulated. In that portion corresponding to what is now known as criminal law, the various offences are minutely distinguished — murder, manslaughter, assaults, wounding, thefts, and all sorts of willful damage, and accidental injuries from flails, sledgehammers, machines, and weapons of all kinds. And the amount of compensation is laid down in detail for almost every possible variety of injury...
...It was the historical role of the tuath — the Irish polity — that consisted of all "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen to enforce the law. There was an annual assembly of all tuath members that decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their "kings." It is also worth noting that no one was stuck or bound to an individual tuath, and was free to (and often did) secede from one tuath and join a competing one. Thus tuatha were voluntary associations that were comprised of the landed properties of their voluntary members. The tuatha were able to guarantee law and order through a complex system of sureties.
Since law enforcement was not a function of the state or king in the Irish tuath, it was entirely dependent on each party in an action or suit to provide themselves with sureties who would guarantee that the judgment of the brehon's court would be honored.
The assessment of a man's property — its character and value — was a crucial aspect of the legal system, for if he were to participate in the elaborate system of suretyship, which was the basic mechanism by which all law was enforced, it was also vital to asses an individual's honor price, another essential part of the Irish judicial system.
The honor price was the payment due to any freeman if his honor rights were injured or impugned in any fashion by another individual. It might be invoked for the violation of any contact, any act of violence to an individual's person or that of his dependents, any trespass on his rights or property, or even malicious use of "satire" without cause that damaged his reputation. Honor price was, therefore, also essential in the workings of the surety system by which means all judgments of the brehon's court were enforced.
WHO enforces the ruling of the court?
WHO does that and what do they do if the property owner refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the court or the other property owners?
The answers were given. The fact that you don't understand it is your problem, not mine.
we read quite well...
it's your screwball ideas that don't work:
" Since law enforcement was not a function of the state or king in the Irish tuath, it was entirely dependent on each party in an action or suit to provide themselves with sureties who would guarantee that the judgment of the brehon's court would be honored."
how would they "guarantee" that the judgement would be honored? How would the "sureties" ..."enforce" the rulings?
you feed this crap to your kid too?
you're looking at an ancient system that was replaced by govt systems.
no where in the world today are there systems like this because they simply would not work. They were the initial incremental steps towards the eventual outcome of govt.
The only "systems" that "work" are the ones that have "enforcers" that carry out the sentence of the court by using force if they have to.
You completely ignore crimes against people and the fact that they are also delt with by courts and they have police and prisons (or you have anarchy)... and those same police and prisons are used against those who violate property rights also.
You're living in LA LA Land.
Ron H: Read this. "the fact of a MWP had already been established, beyond dispute, by direct observations made by the French social historian Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie."
Um, no. Ladurie did not establish global mean temperature, only regional. In any case, this has little to do with the question. The key fact is that over the last half century, the surface and troposphere have warmed, while the stratosphere has cooled. This is a signature of greenhouse warming. Nor is current warming the problem, but the expected increase of 2-5°C of the Earth's mean surface temperature for a doubling of CO2.
VangelV: The real data shows no warming over the past 80 years.
Interesting how they convinced the vast majority of scientists otherwise, including those working on surface, radiosonde and satellite.
http://www.zachriel.com/images/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
VangelV: It seems that you don't read very well either.
Not sure your point. For good or ill, central governments have overcome, overtaken or overwhelmed societies without central governments. This has occurred in virtually every culture and from many different political starting points. Only isolated groups have avoided this, and those that remain today, even when protected, are subject to huge cultural pressures of modernization.
Larry G: how would they "guarantee" that the judgement would be honored? How would the "sureties" ..."enforce" the rulings?
In tribal societies, conformity or ostracizing are typical responses. These still have sway in modern society, but governments represent the central organizing principle.
"WHO enforces the ruling of the court?
WHO does that and what do they do if the property owner refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the court or the other property owners?"
OMG
"why would they cede their own votes to someone else to force them to do something they do not agree with?"
LOL!! You are hilarious. That should be our question for YOU, because that's exactly what you are living with now.
"who decides that? I am reading Mr. Loon but it does not make good sense!"
I think he meant that you should read some books or something, not just these comments.
LOL
"I'm not seeing much difference between your "voluntary" association and the use of force against those who won't volunteer or agree - and the bigbad govt that you so hate.
I think you are pretty confused here."
There's confusion, all right, take a look in the mirror to see it.
What do you not understand about a voluntary organization that a person joins to get the benefits of membership? In the case at hand, members get the benefit of protection of property rights, among other things, and impartial judgement of disputes. If you don't abide by a judgement you will be kicked out of the club, which means other members will no longer protect your rights, including life, liberty, and property.
Being an *outlaw*, a none member, isn't a place anyone wants to be, as they are at the mercy of anyone who wants to kill. rob, or enslave them.
It isn't necessary that the court or the judge enforce anything on you.
Why is this so hard for you? Read some BOOKS. or something. How can you attempt to discuss this subject when you don't have any idea what's being discussed?
Look outside your tiny world, where an all powerful government tells you when to brush your teeth, how much tiolet paper you can use, and what kinds of food you can eat, and can if it chooses, lock you up in isolation for as long as it wishes without charges, trial, or access to an attorney.
Imagine a world where people take care of themselves and others without such nonsense.
"we read quite well..."
If that's the case, why not make use of that valuable skill to educate yourself?
"Since law enforcement was not a function of the state or king in the Irish tuath, it was entirely dependent on each party in an action or suit to provide themselves with sureties who would guarantee that the judgment of the brehon's court would be honored.""
"how would they "guarantee" that the judgement would be honored? How would the "sureties" ..."enforce" the rulings? "
Never mind, I take that back. Don't bother reading, that's not the problem.
Z: "Um, no. Ladurie did not establish global mean temperature, only regional. In any case, this has little to do with the question. The key fact is that over the last half century, the surface and troposphere have warmed, while the stratosphere has cooled. This is a signature of greenhouse warming. Nor is current warming the problem, but the expected increase of 2-5°C of the Earth's mean surface temperature for a doubling of CO2."
You can ignore the editorial review, just read the book if you haven't done so. You owe it to yourself to understand what it is you're denying.
it's not a question of not understanding "voluntary" associations ... it's a question of how they function and how they can effectively deal with issues involving people who do not want to participate in the first place since the very basis for the formation of the group is really to agree to limit what some believe are property rights that extend beyond their physical property lines.
Now who would agree to limit their activities if those activities were profitable to them to start with?
If someone creates personal wealth by disposing of waste in air or water, why would they agree to have their wealth-creating activities reduced or eliminated?
this is not an issue of "reading" and "learning" at all...
it's an issue of having the advocate of this actually respond to the questions about it's viability and why we have government instead.
this is the problem with you guys.
you advocate these cockamamie things that have no real world analogs..and when questions are asked - you response is to "read"....and "learn".
you guys are hilarious.
you basically advocate for things that are demonstrably not viable and then your "defense" is to impune those who ask questions that you cannot or will not answer.
the fact that you also believe in global conspiracies as explanations of widespread scientific consensus does not bolster your case either.
Ron H: You can ignore the editorial review, just read the book if you haven't done so.
Not sure why we would bother to read the book when a supposedly positive review points out critical errors in the book.
Trying referring to the primary literature.
Ron H: If you don't abide by a judgement you will be kicked out of the club, which means other members will no longer protect your rights, including life, liberty, and property.
So the city elders build a wall to protect their collective property from marauders. Some people don't contribute, but own a plot within the walls, won't join the club and refuse to contribute to the defense of the city.
People upstream don't choose to be part of your anarchistic commune. They dam the river and dump their sewage downstream. Your city water is now polluted, and disease spreads within the city walls.
The marauders organize into a meritocratic and ruthless band—sort of the society you envision—, cut off trade, and represent a military threat to the city.
The neighboring town institutes taxation and central government, including mandatory conscription when the city is under attack.
how would they "guarantee" that the judgement would be honored? How would the "sureties" ..."enforce" the rulings?
The system was in place for more than a thousand years so I would say that it worked well.
Your reading comprehension problem is popping up again. The system works like insurance. The sureties pay out the damages to the victims out of their own pockets. Once the victim is compensated s/he no longer has any further claims. The sureties collect from their own member to the best of their abilities. That could be by selling off his property or selling him into indentured servitude until the debt is paid.
you're looking at an ancient system that was replaced by govt systems.
No. You don't read well again. It was replaced by conquest and force.
The durability of the law was quite astounding. Existing in Ireland long before the Common Era, it remained the favored system by the Irish and Normans alike until the 17th century and the reign of Queen Elizabeth. This was despite the fact that English writers were always strong in their condemnation of the Brehon law, and a number of acts of Parliament were taken against it. Parliament even went so far as to declare it an act of treason for English settlers to use it. In defiance of such bans, English who lived outside the pale — the English-dominated area — adopted Brehon law.
The reason for the durability of the Brehon law was the people themselves. The entire existing body of literature of Ireland shows the great respect the Irish people held for justice and law, and an abhorrence for unjust decisions. As a leading authority on Irish law has written, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice.… There was no trace of State-administrated justice."[1] And as late as the beginning of the 17th century, Sir John Davies, the attorney general for James I stated, "There is no nation of people under the sunne that doth love equall and indifferent justice better than the Irish.""
People prefer justice, which is something that modern law is not concerned with. Note that if someone kills you today your family is not compensated as it would have been under customs or common law. The old was was concerned about compensation and making things right as much as they could be. Current law is strictly about punishment even if the victim has to pay for it again.
This is a signature of greenhouse warming. Nor is current warming the problem, but the expected increase of 2-5°C of the Earth's mean surface temperature for a doubling of CO2.
Nonsense. First of all, the data shows that stratospheric cooling has nothing to do with radiative imbalance but with adiabatic cooling. Second, the equatorial midtropospheric warming predicted to be caused by that radiative imbalance has not been observed. Neither has the ocean heat storage. Third, all of the warming since the 1930s comes from adding an artificial warming signal to the data, not the measurements. The measurements show that the 1930s were warmer than current temperatures not only for the United States but for Australia, NZ, and other countries. Forth, Hansen and his fellow group of conspirators have already been shown to be guilty of selection bias and data manipulation. Their original data has been shown not to indicate any warming.
Not sure your point.
The point is that we do not need government to have justice. In fact common and customs law systems, warts and all, did a much better job than legislative law, which ignores the compensation of victims, makes victims pay for the incarceration of the criminals that harmed them, and creates many new categories of victimless crimes that imprison people who have not harmed anyone else.
For good or ill, central governments have overcome, overtaken or overwhelmed societies without central governments.
For ill, they have overcome decentralized societies. The United States is a good example of this as the original vision of a confederation of states with a weak central government is a distant memory and you now live in what is essentially a police state that was chosen voluntarily by a majority of voters who prefer serfdom to freedom. Sadly, it is still far better and freer than most countries including, in many ways, mine.
This has occurred in virtually every culture and from many different political starting points. Only isolated groups have avoided this, and those that remain today, even when protected, are subject to huge cultural pressures of modernization.
Your analysis sucks. They did not abandon decentralized freely but were the victims of conquest.
Why is this so hard for you?
Two possibilities are likely. One is that he is dumb as a post and incapable of learning anything new. The second is that he is so bound by ideology that he rejects anything that does not fit. We see on this post that readers on both the left and right have this problem and tend to be blinded to violations of principles that they claim to support when their own side violates those principles. We see the lefties defend the torture by Obama even though they were attacking Bush for the same reason and see the right wing posters defend the big government budgets of Ryan or Romney even as they slam Obama for spending too much.
Read some BOOKS. or something. How can you attempt to discuss this subject when you don't have any idea what's being discussed?
Haven't you noticed that he has been doing that for years now. He makes Benny look like a genius.
" They did not abandon decentralized freely but were the victims of conquest"
worldwide? Every single nation-state in the entire world?
what planet are you living on?
well..we're not BOUND to doctrines, ideologies and just plain idiotic beliefs with no basis in the real world.
for some reason... you fools think if something in written in a book..it is real.....and legitimate...
WTF?
how would they "guarantee" that the judgement would be honored? How would the "sureties" ..."enforce" the rulings?
The system was in place for more than a thousand years so I would say that it worked well."
really??? why didn't it survive and preempt the development of govt?
"Your reading comprehension problem is popping up again. The system works like insurance. The sureties pay out the damages to the victims out of their own pockets. Once the victim is compensated s/he no longer has any further claims. The sureties collect from their own member to the best of their abilities. That could be by selling off his property or selling him into indentured servitude until the debt is paid."
it's not a reading comp problem guy. It's a concept problem that when asked you run away from ....
people who make money by polluting are likely not interested in "insurance" nor agreeing to limit the activities that benefit their own wealth creation
" The sureties collect from their own member to the best of their abilities. That could be by selling off his property or selling him into indentured servitude until the debt is paid."
even if the property owner is not a member and disavows the "surety"?
how does that work? How can a surety "seize" property guy?
"you're looking at an ancient system that was replaced by govt systems.
No. You don't read well again. It was replaced by conquest and force."
This is not about reading. This is about cockamamie thinking on your part reaching back to failed strategies that were supplanted by governance that was effective.
"The durability of the law was quite astounding. Existing in Ireland long before the Common Era, it remained the favored system by the Irish and Normans alike until the 17th century and the reign of Queen Elizabeth."
why didn't it survive? why do we not see any examples of it today ?
"This was despite the fact that English writers were always strong in their condemnation of the Brehon law, and a number of acts of Parliament were taken against it. Parliament even went so far as to declare it an act of treason for English settlers to use it. In defiance of such bans, English who lived outside the pale — the English-dominated area — adopted Brehon law."
are these the same people who "in theory" would have "volunteered" to participate in self-governance?
when people refuse to participate how do you deal with them?
do you use or threaten force or not?
"The reason for the durability of the Brehon law was the people themselves. The entire existing body of literature of Ireland shows the great respect the Irish people held for justice and law, and an abhorrence for unjust decisions. As a leading authority on Irish law has written, "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice.… There was no trace of State-administrated justice."[1] And as late as the beginning of the 17th century, Sir John Davies, the attorney general for James I stated, "There is no nation of people under the sunne that doth love equall and indifferent justice better than the Irish.""
what a bunch of unmitigated idiocy. You DO live in LA LA Land!
"People prefer justice, which is something that modern law is not concerned with. Note that if someone kills you today your family is not compensated as it would have been under customs or common law. The old was was concerned about compensation and making things right as much as they could be. Current law is strictly about punishment even if the victim has to pay for it again."
people don't get justice under a voluntary system guy. that's why the same people who THOUGHT a voluntary system would work - gave up and formed a govt that worked.
what did these folks do about crimes against people themselves like rape and assault, murder?
did the "sureties" handle that also?
did they have police and prisons?
does that mean they DID use FORCE?
does that mean they TAXED?
you act like you are a "learned" person because you "read" but your thinking is totally off the wall...
we don't have a "comprehension" or "reading" problem ... We are asking you about obvious problems with your thinking and your answers are laughable and disconnected from realities.
Anytime two or more people AGREE to do something that then restricts both of them equally are engaging in elemental Governance.
from that point on - "voluntary" is the opposite of "agreement".
once you agree to terms - "voluntary" is gone. The contract then governs.
VangelV: It was replaced by conquest and force.
Not always. Though in large part we can say that centralized governments have historically been nearly always militarily, economically and culturally more powerful than their less organized neighbors.
VangelV: Note that if someone kills you today your family is not compensated as it would have been under customs or common law.
Sure they can sue.
VangelV: First of all, the data shows that stratospheric cooling has nothing to do with radiative imbalance but with adiabatic cooling.
Sorry, that study only concerned the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. More important, it doesn't explain why the stratosphere is cooler now than it was. It the change that demands an explanation.
VangelV: Second, the equatorial midtropospheric warming predicted to be caused by that radiative imbalance has not been observed.
As for the tropical tropospheric hotspot, it's not a signature of global warming, but a consequent of tropical surface warming and the lapse rate.
Santer et al., Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, International Journal of Climatology 2008.
VangelV: Neither has the ocean heat storage.
Gleckler et al., Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales, Nature Climate Change 2012.
VangelV: Third, all of the warming since the 1930s comes from adding an artificial warming signal to the data, not the measurements.
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study
http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/
VangelV: Forth, Hansen and his fellow group of conspirators have already been shown to be guilty of selection bias and data manipulation.
Oh? What tribunal convicted Hansen of any ethical violation? In any case, such manufactured controversies have nothing to do with the underlying science.
VangelV: The point is that we do not need government to have justice.
No. Sometimes people or communities will take justice into their own hands, or often people meet justice by their own actions. It's more common in primitive societies which lack modern legal systems, common in certain parts of the world even today.
Zachriel: For good or ill, central governments have overcome, overtaken or overwhelmed societies without central governments.
VangelV: They did not abandon decentralized freely but were the victims of conquest.
As we said, decentralized societies were overcome, overtaken or overwhelmed by more centralized systems. Some were conquered. Some demanded a king. Some adopted foreign customs.
For some reason you keep ignoring the point. For good or ill, all over the world, by a variety of mechahnisms, centralized governments have replaced decentralized governments. However, decentralization lives within the bounds of centralized governments. Modern society is a complex network of relationships from local to global, from personal to government, from courts to legislatures, from economic to cultural.
VangelV: "The reason for the durability of the Brehon law was the people themselves."
It was because of their isolation. Ireland is the edge of the world.
it's not a question of not understanding "voluntary" associations ...
OK.
it's a question of how they function and how they can effectively deal with issues involving people who do not want to participate in the first place since the very basis for the formation of the group is really to agree to limit what some believe are property rights that extend beyond their physical property lines.
So it is a question of not understanding "voluntary" associations after all. All it took was one sentence to contradict your previous claim.
Now who would agree to limit their activities if those activities were profitable to them to start with?
Read.
If someone creates personal wealth by disposing of waste in air or water, why would they agree to have their wealth-creating activities reduced or eliminated?
Read.
this is not an issue of "reading" and "learning" at all...
Yes it is because the answers have been given. You either did not look at them or are too stupid to understand them.
it's an issue of having the advocate of this actually respond to the questions about it's viability and why we have government instead.
We have government because of conquest. As was pointed out in some of the reference material, the people preferred the justice of a customs law system to the arbitrary rules made by a king or Parliament.
this is the problem with you guys.
Yes, reading and understanding is a problem for the faith based ideologues.
you advocate these cockamamie things that have no real world analogs..and when questions are asked - you response is to "read"....and "learn".
The system was in place before the birth of Christ and finally ended in the 17th century and you say no real world analogues. Read. Learn.
you basically advocate for things that are demonstrably not viable and then your "defense" is to impune those who ask questions that you cannot or will not answer.
If you want to give the argument of the sophist Thrasymachus that in most hierarchical political systems justice is what the powerful say it is then I will not argue very much. But that was not the debate. The debate was do we need government to have protection and the rule of law. The answer is no we do not . Open any law book and see how many times the word justice comes up or where you find any discussion about the subject. But customs law is all about justice. Which is why it is preferred by the people over the command and control system of government law.
the fact that you also believe in global conspiracies as explanations of widespread scientific consensus does not bolster your case either.
We have pointed out the data manipulation to you. We have pointed out that the empirical data concludes that CO2 levels are an effect, not a cause. The fact that you are too stupid to understand or too lazy to read is your problem.
worldwide? Every single nation-state in the entire world?
what planet are you living on?
This one. I suggest that you look to history. Which nation has not been created by conquest again?
really??? why didn't it survive and preempt the development of govt?
It did survive for a long time but was ended in conquest. The system that replaced it has not been around for nearly as long and is looking to be on shaky ground at the moment.
it's not a reading comp problem guy. It's a concept problem that when asked you run away from ....
people who make money by polluting are likely not interested in "insurance" nor agreeing to limit the activities that benefit their own wealth creation
But they have no right to pollute and harm others. When they do they lose their money and their property as compensation. You think that it is all right to aggress on others or their property. Most people do not and want justice to be done.
even if the property owner is not a member and disavows the "surety"?
how does that work? How can a surety "seize" property guy?
First of all, to deal with others in society commercially you need to have a surety that will back up any claims against you that you lose. Second of all, other people are members of mutual aid or fraternal organizations that will protect them from aggression by others.
If you engage in commercial transactions then you are insured and your insurer is on the hook for damages. If you fail to do good the insurer will pay the victim but will take your property to pay your debt. If you are not insured nobody does business with you and are out in the cold free of protection.
You clearly have a reading comprehension problem because the system is adequately described and the logic is not difficulat to follow.
Not always. Though in large part we can say that centralized governments have historically been nearly always militarily, economically and culturally more powerful than their less organized neighbors.
Not always? Give us an example where successful nations were formed without force or decentralisation was in the absence of force? When and where have people willingly given up their freedom to a central power.
Sure they can sue.
Check the facts as they are, not as you imagine them to be. When some punk steals your TV you do not get it replaced because in your system you cannot sue for compensation without spending more than you get. Under a customs law system the TV would be replaced by the perpetrator's surety and he would have to earn enough to pay the surety back plus damages for time and effort spent.
Sorry, that study only concerned the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. More important, it doesn't explain why the stratosphere is cooler now than it was. It the change that demands an explanation.
The study concluded that the radiative imbalance that the AGW hypothesis depends on was not a factor. Which explains why the mid-tropospheric hot spot was never found and why the ARGO system has not found the predicted heat storage in the ocean.
As for the tropical tropospheric hotspot, it's not a signature of global warming, but a consequent of tropical surface warming and the lapse rate.
No. It is predicted by the models but fails to show up in the real world.
" but will take your property to pay your debt"
how would they do that if you refused to leave?
and by what authority would they do that if the property owner refused to recognize them as an authority?
you say this is "explained" in the "reading".
It is not and you choose not to provide it ...just run and hide...
did you answer the question about how law and justice is administered and meted out with crime in a "voluntary association" ?
is there jurisdiction limited to only those who agree to "voluntarily participate" ?
Gleckler et al., Human-induced global ocean warming on multidecadal timescales, Nature Climate Change 2012.
No cigar.
Gleckler et al 2012 neglect to comment on the radiative imbalance diagnosed from the Levitus et al 2012 paper. Even though both were published in 2012, Glecker and colleagues certainly must have had an opportunity to update their paper with the Levitus et al 2012 new paper.
The empirical evidence actually falsifies the 2005 Hansen paper.
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study
http://berkeleyearth.org/analysis/
Even Judy Curry does not agree with the conclusions drawn and she is one of the authors. But let us note that the Berkley study used adjusted data that already had a warming signal added to it so it is not surprising that the authors found that warming signal.
Oh? What tribunal convicted Hansen of any ethical violation? In any case, such manufactured controversies have nothing to do with the underlying science.
They changed the actual measurements to turn a cooling trend into warming. That has a lot to do with the conclusions and is hardly what one would call science.
No. Sometimes people or communities will take justice into their own hands, or often people meet justice by their own actions. It's more common in primitive societies which lack modern legal systems, common in certain parts of the world even today.
That is not what customs law is about. It is all about justice and compenstation, which is the one thing that the modern system does not seem to care about.
As we said, decentralized societies were overcome, overtaken or overwhelmed by more centralized systems. Some were conquered. Some demanded a king. Some adopted foreign customs.
For some reason you keep ignoring the point. For good or ill, all over the world, by a variety of mechahnisms, centralized governments have replaced decentralized governments. However, decentralization lives within the bounds of centralized governments. Modern society is a complex network of relationships from local to global, from personal to government, from courts to legislatures, from economic to cultural.
Note that I provided historical examples. All you provide is narrative and ignore the examples. Maritime law was developed privately in the absence of government intervention even though it involved a complex set of relationships among different jurisdictions.
It was because of their isolation. Ireland is the edge of the world.
It lasted for thousands of years because it was the choice of the people who preferred justice to the self serving arbitrary laws of a king or parliament.
re: Maritime law
who set up the law and what was it's jurisdiction and how did it enforce it's rulings on those who did not recognize it as having jurisdiction?
you have the very same problem with this as you do with your other ideas.
telling others to "read" and "comprehend" when asked these questions is just evading the issue.
you really are a one-trick pony on this.
VangelV: Yes it is because the answers have been given.
Actually, you have sidestepped several relevant questions, and avoided explaining your position when pressed for detail.
VangelV: We have government because of conquest.
At least in part. Governments have historically been much stronger than less centrally organized societies. Some societies have adopted central government.
You may prefer less centralization, but you haven't shown they are tenable in modern society.
VangelV: Give us an example where successful nations were formed without force or decentralisation was in the absence of force?
There's always force, but not always conquest. “Give us a king to lead us,” 1 Samuel 8:6. Samuel does try to warn them, but they don't listen.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+8&version=NIV
VangelV: When some punk steals your TV you do not get it replaced because in your system you cannot sue for compensation without spending more than you get.
That's not the problem. The problem is the thief doesn't have any attachable assets.
VangelV: Under a customs law system the TV would be replaced by the perpetrator's surety and he would have to earn enough to pay the surety back plus damages for time and effort spent.
Sure, because every punk has surety sufficient to cover his loses. Geez.
VangelV: The study concluded that the radiative imbalance that the AGW hypothesis depends on was not a factor.
No, it doesn't. That's a strawman. The study only concerns the formation of polar stratospheric clouds, and that result would be the same regardless of greenhouse warming. The study does not explain why the stratosphere is cooler today than it was half a century ago.
VangelV: It is predicted by the models but fails to show up in the real world.
Santer et al., Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, International Journal of Climatology 2008.
VangelV: Maritime law was developed privately in the absence of government intervention even though it involved a complex set of relationships among different jurisdictions.
Yes, people work out systems of trade and exchange without government. These systems tend to become destabilized when confronted by centralized governments.
VangelV: It lasted for thousands of years because it was the choice of the people who preferred justice to the self serving arbitrary laws of a king or parliament.
Humans lived without centralized governments for hundreds of thousands of years. Governments are an innovation. Decentralized societies still exist today, but are being eroded culturally, as well as economically, politically, militarily.
re: conquering
so... if someone does not join a voluntary association to "protect" property rights - they just take your property if there is a dispute between you and the "voluntary association"?
Is the taking of property by groups of people "conquering"?
how would they do that if you refused to leave?
and by what authority would they do that if the property owner refused to recognize them as an authority?
you say this is "explained" in the "reading".
Yes it is. If you do not have a surety nobody deals with you and you don't get a property on which you can make stuff that you want because you want the money it will provide you. If there is aggression on your part as would be in the case where you pollute the stream or someone's property you have to pay the damages whether you recongnize the court or not. Customs law is about justice and you don't get a free pass by saying that you do not want to participate in civil society and its rules.
As I said, the logic is very simple here but you persist in your constant stupidity. As I pointed out, the system lasted for thousands of years because it worked, not because a king or army forced people to comply with it.
who set up the law and what was it's jurisdiction and how did it enforce it's rulings on those who did not recognize it as having jurisdiction?
References have been provided many times. That you are too lazy or too stupid to shed your ignorance is no excuse for that ignorance.
" ...you have to pay the damages whether you recongnize the court or not."
really? and if you say "no"?
" Customs law is about justice and you don't get a free pass by saying that you do not want to participate in civil society and its rules."
what's the penalty for refusing to participate?
"As I said, the logic is very simple here but you persist in your constant stupidity. As I pointed out, the system lasted for thousands of years because it worked, not because a king or army forced people to comply with it."
the "logic" is simple-minded as hell and only works under the threat of retribution and force if you don't "voluntarily" agree to "participate".
it has the very same flaw that you cite for govt - they "force" you to comply.
" who set up the law and what was it's jurisdiction and how did it enforce it's rulings on those who did not recognize it as having jurisdiction?
References have been provided many times. That you are too lazy or too stupid to shed your ignorance is no excuse for that ignorance. "
actually all you've done is provide references that do not really address these questions.
it's not "lazy" to ask you to explain your theology anyhow... and you run away and name call when confronted with questions.
Actually, you have sidestepped several relevant questions, and avoided explaining your position when pressed for detail.
I have not. This is not our first discussion on the subject and the mechanism has been explained to our idiot friend. The fact is that customs law systems worked very well for long periods of time. They were concerned with justice and compensation of victims, not just punishment by a state. Our pal should understand because he has been told many times.
At least in part. Governments have historically been much stronger than less centrally organized societies. Some societies have adopted central government.
Give us your examples. I maintain that centralization of power is just the process of the consolidation of power by thugs who gain control of the system. The fact that Ireland remained free and unconquered for as long as it did was because there was no seat of power to take over in order to gain control over the people. Both the Vikings and the English found this out the hard way.
You may prefer less centralization, but you haven't shown they are tenable in modern society.
I think that history shows us that less centralization is better. But it also shows us that the worst always rise to power and their goals is the centralization of power. As I pointed out, I take advantage of this fact to make a very good living by betting against state efficiency.
There's always force, but not always conquest. “Give us a king to lead us,” 1 Samuel 8:6. Samuel does try to warn them, but they don't listen.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+8&version=NIV
How ironic. That is the example I use to show why choosing a king over freedom is so terrible. God does not want a king for Israel and Samuel tells the people that a king would mean, taxation, war, conscription and the loss of liberty. Which is why from that point on the Old Testament is the greatest collection of tax stories.
Now do you have a historical example to support your view? I remain waiting to see it.
That's not the problem. The problem is the thief doesn't have any attachable assets.
That is not a problem in customs law because the thief can work to compensate the surety for the amount paid to the victim.
Sure, because every punk has surety sufficient to cover his loses. Geez.
Every punk has his body and labour. That is a good start.
No, it doesn't. That's a strawman. The study only concerns the formation of polar stratospheric clouds, and that result would be the same regardless of greenhouse warming. The study does not explain why the stratosphere is cooler today than it was half a century ago.
Sorry but that is not the case. The study is very clear that the expected connection that comes from the radiative imbalance hypothesis is not there and that the cooling comes from other reasons that have nothing to do with it.
Santer et al., Consistency of modelled and observed temperature trends in the tropical troposphere, International Journal of Climatology 2008.
Sorry but Santer fails to convince. Even the IPCC has rejected the existence of the predicted mid-troposphere warm spot. No matter how you spin the narrative it just isn't there.
Post a Comment
<< Home