back to article Washout 2012 summer, melty Greenland 'nothing to do with Arctic ice or warm oceans'

Last summer was a washout for us Brits, and indeed top meteorologists are meeting at the moment to find out just why. Some other odd things happened last year, too: exceptionally large areas of the Greenland ice sheet surface melted, as did record amounts of the Arctic ice cap, and ocean temperatures were high. How were all …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Climate report

Disclaimer: what follows has nothing to do with science or climate change

It was freezing in March, freezing in April and cold in May.

Now it's June, it's warm and it's time to go to the swimming pool, yippeeee!

6
2
Stop

Re: Climate report

... don't go swimming in the pool, go to the sea instead, it's really "warm", "Sea surface temperatures have been higher during the past three decades than at any other time since reliable observations began" (epa.gov) ... oh, by the way, higher sea temperatures means more energy in the atmosphere, which means more unpredictable, more extreme, weather ... shouldn't be hard to accept ... but it's really complicated since the way we humans produce CO2 is mostly related to atmospheric pollution which, through filtering and blocking of sunlight, has, at the moment, often a contradictory effect to global warming ... postponing and dampening any detrimental effects on the climate (as I said: at the moment) ... hence the confusion and often really stupid remarks ... hence, jet streams are not independent and self-reliant entities but an expression and phenomenon of the climate (atmosphere) as a whole ... don't jump to conclusions against the opinion of the majority of the scientific world (which accepts the danger of global warming and our involvement in creating it) just because of one publication ... don't forget, there was, once, convincing professional evidence produced that the Titanic was unsinkable ...

0
0
g e
Silver badge
Meh

"a deficiency in these models"

Really. Whodathunkit.

Just when we thought they'd finally got there models utterly perfect and the End of the World was official.

9
2
Silver badge
Big Brother

Overpopulation

Other research states that the world is overpopulated, how will the politicians deal with that problem.

If mankind ever fully understands how nature works he will probably break it. ( Quote : Me)

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Overpopulation

> how will the politicians deal with that problem.

They won't. What politician is ever going to endorse a policy that produces fewer voters?

Mother Nature has it in hand, excessive population problems have a way of sorting themselves out, one way or another. Famine, war, plague, etc. I suppose we'll be able to blame the politicos for the 'war" bit.

2
2

Re: Overpopulation

So you're saying it's time to crack open each other's skulls and feast on the goo inside ?

2
1
Silver badge

Re: Overpopulation

Yes I would Kent.

2
0

Re: Overpopulation

Maybe, but judging from the comments here, its gonna be a lot of effort for very little goo :P

10
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Overpopulation

"Other research states that the world is overpopulated"

No it doesn't.

Why do you just make shit up? What the hell does "overpopulated" mean?

3
7
Silver badge

Re: Overpopulation

Quick thumbs down for John for not understanding that we are on El Reg.

2
0

Re: Overpopulation

The quickest way to deal with overpopulation is development. As wealth increases population growth declines, stalls, and then reverses. Even in countries that notionally have an objection to contraception.

I'm not the greatest fan of models and projections, but those that the UN are working with are predicting a peak in global population (10bn by 2100) and then a gentle decline as global living standard improve. Still, there's some solid data available from the developed and developing world that indicate that these forecasts may be reliable.

So it may be that we won't have to bash out (is eating optional?) each others brains to solve the world population problems. However, there are plenty of other things going on that may yet lead to a sudden and unexpected correction to the worlds population.

See http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38253 small changes in overall fertility can lead to dramatically different outcomes with that population varying from 7bn to 15bn by 2100.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Overpopulation

Steve, I agree from an academic point of view that developement has a role to play. Developement has a political basis which is governed by the bamking industry, an industry that is not very often associated with humanitarian efforts.

People need to be educated in order to understand the effects of having 1, 2 or 3 children, they need to understand why religion should not be taken into consideration with relation to contraception. They need to understand that the worlsd has limited resources and that those resources are very precious. They need to be taught that they genuinely have a role to play in their future.

But the wealthy and those that profit from the situation do not want to educate the people, in fact they need to keep the people dumb......and no amount of financial developement qwill change that fact.

4
4
Silver badge

What resources actually are.

No, the world does not have limited resources. The world has a limited amount of stuff. But resources equals stuff times ingenuity, and ingenuity is infinite.

For example, we can now get more energy out of a cubic metre of air than our recent ancestors could get out of a ton of coal. The amount of stuff decreased (we have less coal now), yet the resources have increased.

According to the UN projections of twenty years ago, the world population is supposed to have crashed by now due to massive worldwide food shortages. The reason those projections were wrong was that the UN assumed that resources equals stuff. We're supposed to have run out of copper ages ago, too, but we invented fibre optic and didn't.

4
0

Re: What resources actually are.

Would you mind explaining to the unenlightened among us how exactly are we getting this energy from air?

2
2
Silver badge

Re: What resources actually are.

"No, the world does not have limited resources. The world has a limited amount of stuff. But resources equals stuff times ingenuity, and ingenuity is infinite."

That is all very well, but ingenuity still requires time to come up with alternatives and yet we seemingly have no ability to ration use of finite resources in the meantime.

Take oil for example, even ignoring the climate aspect of it, it's being used up at such a foolish rate it will be gone in no time. As an energy source it's a gift. High density of energy, highly transportable, cheap (we didn't have to make it). Yet rather than use this gift wisely by stretching it over centuries, we've greedily expanded our consumption to swallow it as fast as possible. All for the sake of a bit of extra wealth in the short-term, rather than spreading it over the longterm.

The fact is our species, for all it's ingenuity, is highly flawed. Humans form highly-primitive societies that at a macro-level act as mindlessly as the bacteria they evolved from. Rapidly spreading over their petridish and exhausting their resource supply.

Use of anti-biotics is another example. Everyone knows that overuse is causing resistance, and that rationing its use would be better in the long-term. But notice we have absolutely no ability to do a thing about it! Instead we all just kind of subscribe some apathetic, lazy, hope-optimism attitude that the problem will just fix itself because our ingenuity will just discover some new anti-biotics or alternatives in time.

It's similar with climate and adaptation. We just kind of hope we'll be able to adapt to whatever it does, because we are powerless to change our own collective behavior.

5
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: What resources actually are.

@NomNomNom:

"Take oil for example, even ignoring the climate aspect of it, it's being used up at such a foolish rate it will be gone in no time"

You are obviously wrong and this is a major fail. This has been stated many times over many years and that is because we have not run out. Oil is not infinite but due to ingenuity we have got to more oil than was previously considered.

"The fact is our species, for all it's ingenuity, is highly flawed. Humans form highly-primitive societies that at a macro-level act as mindlessly as the bacteria they evolved from"

I will somewhat agree. In the struggle to understand the environment we live we have 2 groups. One group have answers, lots of answers, to almost anything. Those people are worthless spouter's of belief. The other group try to find the truth, this takes time and hard work but they find truth and fact. They used to be called scientists but that term has been sullied recently by spouter's of belief claiming to be scientists.

The finders of truth are looking for truth but it is taking time. Then there is the MMCC crowd who claim to have answers but its based on belief. Yet no matter how much life improves by listening to scientists (the ones who actually do science) the simple minded primitive societies still hold on to religions and belief. So much religion. So many easy answers. It must be MMCC co2 theory because the man who drew a graph said so.

The only thing demonstrated by the odd changes in this world is that we dont know what is happening. This could be seen as a good thing, a learning opportunity. Or we can listen to the wise folk who tell us we must be displeasing the gods because they are punishing us. Quick build more monuments to the god of wind and sun and dont forget to donate! It will save your soul.

6
0

Re: Overpopulation - @ Phil O'Sophical

I think there are probably quite a few politicians who would be happy with a policy that reduces the number of _opposition_ voters.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: What politician is ever going to endorse a policy that produces fewer voters?

Apparently most of them in China. But don't let a few ugly facts get in the way of a good rant.

2
0
Silver badge

@John Hughes

It's out there. Try doing an Amazon search on the word and seeing what titles pop up. Same group who push AGW, just a different committee within their organizational table. Their general operating principle is that people are the source of all these problems and the world would be better off without them. Or at least without the ones who don't support the group's political agendas.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: What resources actually are.

"You are obviously wrong and this is a major fail. This has been stated many times over many years and that is because we have not run out. Oil is not infinite but due to ingenuity we have got to more oil than was previously considered."

I took that into account, it doesn't alter my point, if anything it reinforces it. What did we do with the extra oil we found? We used it to increase our rate of consumption! It's like the bacteria finding a bit more petri dish, but unwisely using it to grow even faster.

It's not sustainable, even over the short-term. Wikipedia puts the current figure at about 1300 billion barrels of oil left as proven reserves and we are burning through oil at the rate of about 30 billion barrels per year. That's 43 years left of oil at current consumption rates. It's obvious that we are using the oil unwisely driven by short-term greed rather than using it in a more strategic long-term way.

4
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: What resources actually are.

@NomNomNom:

"I took that into account, it doesn't alter my point, if anything it reinforces it. What did we do with the extra oil we found? We used it to increase our rate of consumption! It's like the bacteria finding a bit more petri dish, but unwisely using it to grow even faster.

It's not sustainable, even over the short-term. Wikipedia puts the current figure at about 1300 billion barrels of oil left as proven reserves and we are burning through oil at the rate of about 30 billion barrels per year. That's 43 years left of oil at current consumption rates. It's obvious that we are using the oil unwisely driven by short-term greed rather than using it in a more strategic long-term way."

Dont worry, those figures will increase, as they have done before, as we dig deeper for more. When we run out or its too much effort (expensive) to go deeper we will change to something else.

There is a reason we dont still sit in caves. Nor do we wait for the sun to provide light. We find another way.

2
0
Silver badge

@NomNomNom

"It's not sustainable, even over the short-term. Wikipedia puts the current figure at about 1300 billion barrels of oil left as proven reserves and we are burning through oil at the rate of about 30 billion barrels per year. That's 43 years left of oil at current consumption rates. It's obvious that we are using the oil unwisely driven by short-term greed rather than using it in a more strategic long-term way."

It's a stupid point of view and for a very simple reason. Let's assume - for no good reason - that your figures are correct. If we make the clearly impossible assumption that we cut our use of oil in half, starting today, then the supply of oil will last, not 43 years, but 86 years. Do you *really* think that an extra 43 years before there's no oil, is going to make any kind of real difference in the long run? The chances against it are stupendous! Is there some sort of new technology that will not be ready in the next 43 years but will be ready in the following 43 years? No, those extra 43 years are highly unlikely to supply us with any new advances that couldn't be made in the 43 years which we already have and don't serve as a bridge to any sort of assured future. It's not as though we need to stretch the supply in order to last to some specific date.

And that's a 43 year reprieve under some clearly impossible assumptions. If we use more realistic assumptions, such as, let's say, a 10% reduction in oil consumption, the benefits of reduced oil consumption become positively ephemeral.

And one has to wonder if the modernization of India and China (37% of the world's population, bear in mind!) is going to make it impossible for the total world consumption of oil to do anything other than rise. And if it does rise, perhaps those 43 years of oil left to us becomes 40 years, or 35 years, or even less.

In the event that the supply of oil is such that will run out in the near term, then as a remedy, conservation is a complete waste of time. And the resources that would be invested into conservation of the oil supply would be more wisely and intelligently invested in finding petroleum substitutes that can be used with the current, already-existing and already-deployed infrastructure. And if you really believed in the impending exhaustion of the world's oil supply, then that's what you would be agitating for: massive investments in finding petroleum substitutes, and not some foolish and not-fully-thought-out ideas of solving the problem by conservation.

5
0
Silver badge

Re: @NomNomNom

"If we make the clearly impossible assumption that we cut our use of oil in half, starting today, then the supply of oil will last, not 43 years, but 86 years"

It's obviously not impossible. What you mean is that it won't happen. The reason it won't happen is as I said: because humanities behavior is as mindless as bacteria on a petridish. It can't help chewing as much as possible in as short-time period. There is no strategic planning. I am not saying that can be fixed, I am pointing out a flaw in our species.

"Is there some sort of new technology that will not be ready in the next 43 years but will be ready in the following 43 years?"

Yes Fusion I suspect.

"And one has to wonder if the modernization of India and China (37% of the world's population, bear in mind!) is going to make it impossible for the total world consumption of oil to do anything other than rise. And if it does rise, perhaps those 43 years of oil left to us becomes 40 years, or 35 years, or even less."

You are absolutely right. But what you describe is my point about why humanity is flawed. Humanity has not wisely used the resources available, it's squandered them into swelling it's population and devouring the finite resources faster. It's created a bubble and the risk of that is a crash/correction later. We're creating problems and then hoping our ingenuity/luck will stroll along and solve them. That only has to go wrong once.

"and not some foolish and not-fully-thought-out ideas of solving the problem by conservation."

No, it's too late for conservation now, the rate of consumption has increased too much. Conservation was needed 50 years ago. If we had capped the rate of oil 50 years ago we'd have a far longer and sustainable period of use as being in better control of the supply. As it stands there will probably be some very sharp and fast economic "corrections" ahead.

2
2

Re: What resources actually are.

NomNomNom wrote: "Take oil for example, even ignoring the climate aspect of it, it's being used up at such a foolish rate it will be gone in no time. "

The Chinese have coal -> oil conversion plants that are economic at todays oil prices, they're building more.

Oil, or an equivalent, will be available for a _long_ time.

1
0
Silver badge
Big Brother

Re: @NomNomNom

NomNomNom,

Just to be clear, when you say that "we" are wrongly using too much oil, which huge group of people is it that you believe believe need to sacrifice their wellbeing for the greater good? Presumably, you still want good food to be available in a shop near you, you want your computer and Net connection, and various other items that pre-industrial societies would regard as unbelievable luxury but some of us now get to take for granted. So who has to make the sacrifice? Maybe we could tell India to stop developing. Or Brazil. Or tell the working class to stop driving cars.

I reject the obnoxious premise that your entire argument rests on: that humanity is some sort of whole whose collective actions can be assessed as rational or irrational and can therefore be improved. Every political attempt to treat humanity that way has ended up killing them en masse. I am happier accepting that people are individuals, each trying to better their own little bit of the world, and the long-term net effect of those billions of individual attempts at improvement has always been to make the world better for all of humanity. Trying to impose a grand unified plan on us all... Jesus, how many corpses do we need, exactly, until that idea finally loses its power to seduce?

You will be proven wrong, just as all Malthusians have always been proven wrong. And no doubt you'll then just move the deadline back a few years but claim the doom is still imminent, just as all Malthusians have always done.

2
1
Bronze badge

Re: Overpopulation

Other research suggested the very same conclusion when I was still in diapers.

JFK was still alive back then.

Did the cold war thing, wasn't much fun.

Managed to miss Gulf War I. No biggie.

Didn't miss Gulf War II, real biggie, didn't agree with it, but some oath and contract thing and all.

Later, got to see Afghanistan. Far, far, far prefer home. Nicer climate. Won't go into more, it's unpleasant and not worthy of mixed company or something.

OK, it sucked, killing, buddies getting killed, carnage, dead guys who tried to kill...

Still, we're still plowing crops under and feeding the nation and a hell of a lot of the world.

But, we're overpopulated.

Or something.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @NomNomNom

But surely "If we had capped the rate of oil 50 years ago" we wouldn't have bothered developing the much more efficient engines that we have today over 50 years ago?

0
0
Silver badge

Re: @NomNomNom

"I reject the obnoxious premise that your entire argument rests on: that humanity is some sort of whole whose collective actions can be assessed as rational or irrational and can therefore be improved."

That isn't even my premise. Reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points is it?

"I am happier accepting that people are individuals, each trying to better their own little bit of the world, and the long-term net effect of those billions of individual attempts at improvement has always been to make the world better for all of humanity."

Then accept that in that way humans are little different to mindless bacteria on a petridish who all act as individuals for the greater bad of the whole population.

You can't have it both ways.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: @NomNomNom

"But surely "If we had capped the rate of oil 50 years ago" we wouldn't have bothered developing the much more efficient engines that we have today over 50 years ago?"

Sure we would have, it would have still meant more energy per unit fuel.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: What resources actually are.

"The Chinese have coal -> oil conversion plants that are economic at todays oil prices, they're building more.

Oil, or an equivalent, will be available for a _long_ time."

If you run the numbers that just isn't the case. There's a reason why the price of oil is rising. Demand is already being squeezed by scarcity.

The pattern is that making more of a resource available then humans will just use it grow so they consume the resource at a faster rate. It's a recipe for rapid exhaustion of the resource.

The idea that man can just switch to a better alternative in time is an untested dogma. There's no logic reason that every resource A has a better resource B that can be developed before resource A is exhausted. People act as if peak oil is something that didn't happen, not realizing that it is already emerging.

Exhaustion in this case doesn't even mean the end of oil. There's only 43 years of proven oil reserves left at current consumption, but that doesn't mean the extraction rate of today will survive that long. I think a lot of naysayers are going to be very surprised in coming decades.

1
1

Re: What resources actually are.

I said:"Oil, or an equivalent, will be available for a _long_ time."

NomNomNom replied:"If you run the numbers that just isn't the case. There's a reason why the price of oil is rising. Demand is already being squeezed by scarcity.".......

Just in case you missed it the first time round I'll repeat this again....

The Chinese have coal -> oil conversion plants that are economic at todays oil prices, they're building more.

There are hundreds of years of coal reserves worldwide. This is a newish process, but it's economic at today's oil price. IE They can generate an equivalent from coal at today's oil price.

2
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Your premise, Mr NomNomNom.

"rather than use this gift wisely by stretching it over centuries, we've greedily expanded our consumption"

"Everyone knows that overuse is causing resistance, and that rationing its use would be better in the long-term."

"we are powerless to change our own collective behavior."

"What did we do with the extra oil we found? We used it to increase our rate of consumption!"

"It's obvious that we are using the oil unwisely driven by short-term greed rather than using it in a more strategic long-term way."

"There is no strategic planning. I am not saying that can be fixed, I am pointing out a flaw in our species."

"Humanity has not wisely used the resources available, it's squandered them"

Everything you've written is completely immersed in two ideas: that humanity is a single collective whose actions should therefore be assessed as the actions of a single whole; and that we would be better if the entire collective were run according to a grand unified plan. Your words, not mine: the lack of a strategic plan for every person on Earth is "a flaw in our species". That's the obnoxious premise I reject, and I stand by my claim that all politics based on that premise result in genocide, because they do.

Again: Which millions of people need to sacrifice their wellbeing in your preferred plan? What will you personally give up?

> You can't have it both ways.

What? I can't claim that individuals acting in their own self-interest can achieve anything better than bacteria? Even the most hardcore Soviet Communists didn't go that far.

2
0
Silver badge
FAIL

"If you run the numbers that just isn't the case."

If you run the numbers, we will all run out of oil by the mid-90s. Oh, hang on, no, make that the year 2000. Er, no, 2010. Definitely 2010. Oh, hang on....

I've been listening to this my whole life. How many predictions do the Malthusians need to get utterly wrong before they realise that all the evidence points to their ideas being utter bollocks?

2
0
Silver badge

Re: What resources actually are.

"The Chinese have coal -> oil conversion plants that are economic at todays oil prices, they're building more.

There are hundreds of years of coal reserves worldwide. This is a newish process, but it's economic at today's oil price. IE They can generate an equivalent from coal at today's oil price."

Not only is it an extremely inefficient method of obtaining oil, with massive implications for climate (so much for shale oil supposedly reducing coal use and emissions! the truth is now clear), for it to ramp up enough to replace oil would threaten the imminent exhaustion of coal itself. Humans will lap up any extra oil and exhaust it even faster. Energy use is doubling every two decades or so. Fossil fuel reserves are clearly not! It is a recipe for disaster.

I've had enough of people who think because the shock hasn't happened by 2000 therefore it never will!

1
1
Silver badge

Re: "If you run the numbers that just isn't the case."

"I've been listening to this my whole life. How many predictions do the Malthusians need to get utterly wrong before they realise that all the evidence points to their ideas being utter bollocks?"

They only have to be correct once. That's your mistake, dogmatically assuming that a prediction either must be chronologically bang on or cannot happen at all.

0
2
Silver badge

Re: Your premise, Mr NomNomNom.

"Your words, not mine: the lack of a strategic plan for every person on Earth is "a flaw in our species". That's the obnoxious premise I reject"

You reject it because you are full of human pride and cannot accept the factual flaw in our species. You want to imagine your, my and everyone else's individual selfish actions add up to some wise, logical and strategic behavior. Well that just isn't the case. Our species emergent behavior is mindless, haphazard and relying on chance and luck. It's highly sub-optimal compared to what intelligence would produce.

For example how did the North Atlantic cod fisheries collapse?

Why are we even facing the prospect of an anti-biotics disaster?

"and I stand by my claim that all politics based on that premise result in genocide, because they do."

Another dogma. You haven't observed "all politics" to know that. You have no idea if there isn't a better political system than the current one that can produce long-term strategic policy. All you have is examples of of genocidal dictatorships and are assuming any strategy based politics would have to resemble that.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: "If you run the numbers that just isn't the case."

@NomNomNom:

"They only have to be correct once. That's your mistake, dogmatically assuming that a prediction either must be chronologically bang on or cannot happen at all."

So you use the boy who cried wolf methodology? Not very scientific is it?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Your premise, Mr NomNomNom.

@NomNomNom:

"You reject it because you are full of human pride and cannot accept the factual flaw in our species"

So by the flaw of pride you are too proud to accept your flawed support for a belief instead of waiting for the truth? Or are you better than human?

"Our species emergent behavior is mindless, haphazard and relying on chance and luck"

And so you are describing your approach of belief in a quick answer instead of seeking the truth which greatly improves our odds? Instead you mindlessly cry the sky is falling when the groups who make this claim have been demonstrated greatly untrustworthy? How many absolute certainties must they get wrong before you dont believe them? Or will you rely on chance and luck that they might be right eventually? Why not let the scientists work and then read the facts when we know something? Like how climate works.

"For example how did the North Atlantic cod fisheries collapse?

Why are we even facing the prospect of an anti-biotics disaster?"

Blind faith. Yet in both instances we seek to better ourselves by helping cod survive and looking to advance medicine. How much of that was achieved by sitting back and saying we are all doomed because the wealthy guys who make money on this scam tell us so?

There are real problems in this world nom. Real things we do know about. And of course we should keep looking for the answers of how climate truly works and what truly affects it.

2
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: @John Hughes

Oh, it's "out there" is it.

In other words you don't have a clue.

Please provide a citation for peer reviewed research that "states that the world is overpopulated".

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Your premise, Mr NomNomNom.

> You want to imagine your, my and everyone else's individual selfish actions add up to some wise, logical and strategic behavior.

Not at all. I believe that the cumulative effect of large numbers of individuals acting in their own interests produces, on aggregate, effective solutions. No wisdom, logic, or strategy required. Adam Smith and Charles Darwin say I'm right.

>Why are we even facing the prospect of an anti-biotics disaster?

Even if we have an antibiotics disaster, it will follow a hundred years of successful use of antibiotics to save millions of lives. You wish to classify that as complete failure and proof that humans make no progress other than a bit of blind luck. That's ridiculous. It's like saying that none of the achievements of the Romans count for anything because their empire eventually fell.

I might add that one of the major reasons why so few new antibiotics have been developed recently is that it has been made clear to pharmaceutical firms that their patents on useful drugs will be ignored and broken by certain governments and cheap generics will be given to millions of people for free. Faced with the prospect of investing billions in R&D over decades and then not being allowed to make any resultant profits, the R&D has of course shrunk. In other words, one of the root causes was strategic planning by governments and charities and campaigners. Really crappy strategic planning, which is usually the only kind on offer. Give me unplanned progress any day.

That aside, I note that you are now vigorously defending the premise which you claimed you didn't actually support at all.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Your premise, Mr NomNomNom.

> Another dogma. You haven't observed "all politics" to know that. You have no idea if there isn't a better political system than the current one that can produce long-term strategic policy. All you have is examples of of genocidal dictatorships and are assuming any strategy based politics would have to resemble that.

Sitting atop a pile of skulls singing "Let's try again!"

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Your premise, Mr NomNomNom.

"I believe that the cumulative effect of large numbers of individuals acting in their own interests produces, on aggregate, effective solutions. No wisdom, logic, or strategy required."

Just because they aren't required doesn't mean the solutions are the best or that they cannot be used to improve the solutions.

Look up something called Tragedy of the Commons for example. An example where individuals acting in their own self-interests will destroy all their interests. In such cases wisdom, logic and strategy must be used to avoid it.

Businesses don't work in the way you describe and neither does the military. Like me they seem to believe wisdom, logic and strategic planning are important parts of driving solutions. They don't just say "hey all you employees/soldiers, do what you want according to your self-interest and a great company/army will emerge"

Examples keep popping into my head. Rationing for example. I guess you disagree with the use of rationing during the war, the better solution would have been to not impose any restrictions on food and instead let self-interest produce a solution?

Antibiotics are being used for trivial shitty selfish reasons like if someone visits their GP with a sore throat, or used by farmers on cattle for example, which hastens the increase in bacterial resistance. So your effective solution of just letting people act self-interestedly is actually wasting the lifetime of antibiotics, because it's in people's self-interest to stupidly try and treat minor ailments with antibiotics.

Yet rather than restrict antibiotics you argue such intervention would be worse. Your chosen generic solution to any scarcity problem is that the problem will just go away. That an alternative will be found before it runs out. Why can't you see that's a dogma? There is no logical basis behind that belief. There's no law of the universe that states Humankind will always find an alternative before a resource runs out. Or maybe you are going on odds? Maybe you are willing to sacrifice the odd occasion when an alternative cannot be found in time?

0
1
Silver badge
Mushroom

Keep digging.

The military are able to run a large organisation according to complex plans thanks to certain principles: Absolute control, strict obedience, severe punishment for failure to obey orders, even if those orders are suicidal. Funnily enough, other people who, like you, think we should run society according to centralised planning always end up applying those same principles to the general populace. Because thats the only effective way to do it. Which is my point.

It's worth doing when under threat of invasion. But you want to do it today.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Overpopulation

Khaptain, while I agree that "research" states that the world is over populated. I personally think (yeah anon and all) that we can grow in population a bit more if we stop polluting so much. This is the problem I have with the climate gazers. They are too far in their thinking. Sure we can destroy the earth, but I think it is being destroyed in other ways much faster than the climate. With this in mind, yes, the earth is over populated. However, if we change a few bad addictions (there are political problems with this) then I think the earth can sustain larger population before we have to start migrating to other planets. In other scenarios we eat each others faces off, convert to zombieizm, become "enlightened" by machines, are attacked by the mothership, yada yada yada... </nerd_talk>

0
0

climate an weather

Now we will hear from everyone who confuses climate with weather. " it was cold this winter so climate change is a scam" and other utter bullshit. Is what is happening in Greenland climate or weather? Not having the expertise I have no opinion, but the observations are interesting anyway.

1
4

Re: climate an weather

"it was cold this winter..."

Isn't a whole season's weather some kind of indicator of climate? And of course everyone confuses climate and weather. It's confusing. If climate is a long term average of weather, climate can only change if the weather changes. So all those climate change scientists are really looking at things that change the weather. Perhaps they should be called "things that change the weather and therefore change the climate" scientists.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: climate an weather

"Isn't a whole season's weather some kind of indicator of climate? "

No.

Odd years happen quite often - see El Nino/La Nina.

You need around 30 years to be able to talk about climate. You need to see a trend over such a period to talk anout climate change.

Unfortunately we can see such a trend.

11
0
Silver badge
Stop

Re: climate an weather

Now we will hear from everyone who confuses climate with weather

Oh fuck off. How is global warming not reflected in weather? Is it invisible like tiny fairies who will KILL US ALL but they're invisible and magic so we'll never know?

"It's climate, not weather". Guaranteed always always the first response of the fervent religious believer (who doesn't understand either).

7
10
Silver badge

@Tim Roberts 1: Re: climate an weather

"Is what is happening in Greenland climate or weather?"

If you believe in AGW it's climate, but if you don't, it's weather.

3
0
Silver badge

@Tim Roberts 1

Why is it that every time somebody points to a single season in which there is a problem with AGW we hear "climate =/= weather" but every time there is a single season which supports it we hear "see, AGW is destroying the earth!"?

4
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums