So, no response to my question about whether the paper I linked to was the one you were talking about, and my pointing out that p. B8 of the paper clearly indicates that it'll make a major difference to the temperature in 100 years whether we reduce emissions or carry on with business as usual?
As for your comments, all I can say is that you seem to be one of those people who's only interested in thinking about issues in personal, narrative terms--us vs. them conceptions of which "side" supports a given position, speculations about the personal motivations people may have for taking the positions they do, etc. Discussion of more impersonal approaches to understanding the world, approaches based on math and quantitative evaluation of evidence, seems to be something you're entirely uninterested in. Sometimes I think we would have a much saner world if the average person was just, say, 5 points higher on the "autism quotient" scale ( http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aqtest.html )... On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:48 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > My point is Jesse, yes the truth is repeatable, is that the rich and their > kept politicians, do behave in the short run, or as class-hero, John > Maynard Keynes, said: in the long run, we're all dead. I maintain that > their behavior is aligned with a great exaggeration, rather then a great > dilemma. It's not like they do not partake the same bread with most of the > media. Example, the NY Times is majority owned, by billionaire Carlos Slim > Helu, and both Helu and pinchie Sulzberger, dine from identical world > views. My view is that we are alive now, for a while, focus, then, on the > issues, at hand. However, the rich and their pet pols know a good scheme > when they see one. Or, as Henry Kissinger once noted, power is the greatest > aphrodisiac. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> > To: everything-list <[email protected]> > Sent: 11-Mar-2014 14:03:15 +0000 > Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:33 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thrre was a report judt last week released by the NAS and the UK Royal > Society indicating that switching power sources will not help. > > > You're just repeating yourself, did you actually read my response? I asked > if you were talking about the report at > http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf, > which was released by the Royal Society and NAS on Feb. 27 (I don't know > if you'd call that "last week")-- just tell me "yes" or "no", please. > > If your answer is "yes"--and I'm pretty sure that the NAS and Royal > Society didn't release any OTHER climate reports besides this one in the > last couple weeks--then as I already explained before, it's clear you > simply didn't understand it well (or didn't read the entire thing), since > while the report did say on p. 22 that CO2 levels wouldn't drop quickly if > emissions were halted, p. B8 also clearly shows that temperature wouldn't > rise much beyond present levels in an "aggressive emissions reduction" > scenario, whereas it would rise to levels that would likely be pretty > catastrophic for human civilization in a "business as usual" emissions > scenario. > > > > > Secondly, the behavior of pols and the super rich are not consistent with > this new report, or fears of an insurging ocean. > > > Most politicians and super rich, like most people in general, have a bias > towards preserving their near-term interests over long-term issues > (especially issues that are only likely to become really serious after > their death). The effects of climate change aren't fast enough that they're > likely to have much effects on a politician's reelection prospects, or a > rich person's stock portfolio over the next couple decades. Still, plenty > of politicians and business leaders are making serious efforts, see this > article I posted to John Clark about how the EU's emissions reduction > policy has brought down emissions by 18% since 1990 levels, on track with > the goals they set at the Kyoto conference: > > http://ec.europa.eu/clima/news/articles/news_2013100901_en.htm > > And here's an article about how Apple CEO Tim Cook shot down investors who > didn't approve of the policy of reducing emissions by relying more on > renewable energy: > > > http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/01/apple_ceo_tim_cook_shoots_down_global_warming_deniers_at_shareholders_meeting.html > > > > This peaks my suspicion. But fear not, I am but a submicron with zero > influence on public policy. I just am suspicious of the ruling class using > academic hucksters to glom more power-highly intelligent hucksters though > they may be. > > > So you think scientists are "academic hucksters" if they reach conclusions > about objective reality that might favor policies that are inconvenient for > your own political beliefs? Your responses to Chris clearly show you > haven't made any attempt to understand the science on its own terms, > independent of politics and crude us vs. them tribalistic thinking > (liberals are worried about global warming while U.S. conservatives and > libertarians typically aren't, liberals=bad, therefore it must be a power > grab!) > > Jesse > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesse Mazer <[email protected]> > To: everything-list <[email protected]> > Sent: Mon, Mar 10, 2014 1:15 pm > Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:31 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > According to Chris, "Climate is not the weather" or the local weather. So > if this suggestion is correct, its local anomalies over the years, driven > onward, by El Nino' or La Nina' ? According to a report released, last > week, by the Royal Climate Group and the US national academy of sciences, a > change in energy sources will not help us. I had to read it twice to > comprehend what the report indicated. > > > > > Are you talking about the report at http://dels.nas.edu/ > resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate- > change-full.pdf ? If so you have totally misunderstood "what the report > indicated", page B8 shows that climate models predict the "Aggressive > emissions reduction" scenario would result in much lower global temperature > in 2100 than the "'Business as usual' emissions" scenario. They do say on > p. 22 that "If emissions of CO2 stopped altogether, it would take many > thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to 'pre-industrial' levels > due to its very slow transfer to the deep ocean and ultimate burial in > ocean sediments", but even if temperatures don't drop for a while, as long > as they don't rise to levels much above what we have today, the > consequences probably wouldn't be too bad (for a discussion of the likely > consequences of each 1 degree rise, check out the book "Six Degrees: Our > Future on a Hotter Planet" by Mark Lynas). > > > Jesse > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
