There's a Word for That
and it's not the one you are using. . . .
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘decarbonization,’ ” Ethon said.This started as a challenge tossed down by Roger P, as the basis of his 'pragmatic' (scare ', not even worth two ") approach. This is Roger's claim, not Ethon's,
Humpty Pielke smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice way to knock-down an argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘decarbonization’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Ethon objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Pielke said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Ethon, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Pielke, “which is to be master that’s all.”
Ethon was too much puzzled to say anything, and started nibbling at the dried Prometheus liver snacks Ms Rabett had packed for him. After a minute Humpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!
1. Decarbonization refers to a decrease in the rate of carbon dioxide emissions divided by GDP.Not according to the US Energy Information Administration, which tells us that
The carbon intensity of the economy can largely be decomposed into two basic elements: (1) energy intensity, defined as the amount of energy consumed per dollar of economic activity; and (2) carbon intensity of energy supply, defined as the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy. As illustrated by the formulas below, the multiplication of the two elements produces a numerical value for U.S. carbon intensity, defined as the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per dollar of economic activity:
Energy Intensity x Carbon Intensity of Energy Supply = Carbon Intensity of the Economy,
or, algebraically,
(Energy/GDP) x (Carbon Emissions/Energy) = (Carbon Emissions/GDP).
So what Roger is defining is carbon intensity. It's a neat trick because it drives everything else since changes can come either from changing the numerator or the denominator and Roger knows how to play.
2. Stabilization of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere (at any low level, but let's say 350 ppm to 550 ppm for those who want a number) requires a rate of decarbonization of >5% per year.
3. The world has been decarbonizing for at least 100 years, and the rate of this decarbonization was about 1.5% from 1980 to 2000.
The reason that the definition is important can be seen in a graph showing carbon intensity, energy intensity and the carbon/energy ratio for the US at the EIA site. True this is only for twenty years, but what can be seen immediatelyis that the change in carbon intensity has been driven by the change in energy/gdp, not visa versa, that the ratio of carbon to energy has stayed roughly constant.So what is the rate of change in carbon intensity for the US from 1980 to 2000, about 2% per year, BUT the change in energy intensity is just about the same.
4. In order to get from a rate of 1.5% (or smaller) to higher rates, such as >5%, requires that decarbonization be accelerated.Roger, appears not to have noticed that the world is somewhere between a recession and a depression, i.e. GDP is not growing. Historically, carbon intensity has been controlled by increases in efficiency and has been denominator controlled. What the world needs is to decrease the total amount of emitted carbon.
5. However, the world has in recent years seen rates of decarbonization decelerate and in the most recent few years may have even been re-carbonizing, that is, the ration of CO2/GDP has been increasing.
6. In 2010 the United States re-carbonized as well.
There has been no effective decarbonization (not decarbonization TM RPJ) and, some, not Eli to be sure, would say there will never be as long as Roger has anything to say about it. Go over there and cheer the old guy up.
(Oh yes, Roger's links are all to Roger. Eli is shocked:)
Posts
71 comments:
Josh, We appear to be in almost a perfect agreement:
"Figure 3.5 shows that the primary reason for decarbonization since 1980 has been improvements in energy efficiency (i.e., energy intensity of GDP), while improvements in the carbon intensity of energy have contributed a smaller amount. If the world is going to simultaneously provide much more energy and meet aggressive targets for decarbonization, then decreases of energy supply are necessarily going to have to play a much larger role in future decarbonization than in the past."
TCF, p. 75
"the carbon intensity of" should appear before "energy supply" above, sorry.
Page 75 just jumps right out there. A fine place for a key concept that you want people to know about, for sure.
Headline: 6 times 9 equals 42!
Text: mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble all results in base 13 mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble mumble
The above is not a good way of communicating your result.
bluegrue
Why do people in or aspiring to be in the climate science establishment always try to prove that they are smarter than everyone else? This pretense of omniscience is a primary reason that the AGW effort is failing so miserably. It is certainly a major reason why RealClimate is so ineffective. The foolish remarks of the climate science establishment reflect unfavorably on climate science and make the AGW problem that much more difficult to solve
Pielke Junior's formulation allows one to examine all of the factors that are involved in the generation of carbon emissions by the economy. it allows one to see what factors can feasibly be reduced in light of political and social reality. That is his point.
Is mother nature / the climate system / atmospheric physics likely to be convinced by weasel words / AKA bullshit?
Further to RPJ's contribution above. His paragraph on page 75 of "The Climate Fix" continues with
================
"The good news is that reductions in the carbon intensity of energy can also contribute to diversifying supply and improving energy security"
================
Hence those who are skeptical of AGW claims can be convinced to decarbonize the economy for other benefits. This is a policy which will cause "No Regrets" for AGW skeptics and hence may be politically feasible. Maybe we do not have to prove that climate skeptics are ignorant fools in order to move ahead with realistic solutions.
Shorter dljvjbsl:
How dare you even suggest that I might be wrong! This is OUTRAGEOUS INCIVILITY!!!!!!!!1111111
-- frank
dljvjbsl said: "This pretense of omniscience is a primary reason that the AGW effort is failing so miserably."
The "AGW effort" (and the reality it fairly accurately describes) is "failing" in the same way as a laminated, armoured glass windscreen on a truck travelling at 60 mph is "failing" against a cloud of june bugs.
The bugs haven't the vaguest conception of what's oncoming, but can create a distracting mess.
Can someone finagle words and arguments and not be aware they are finagling? It's always seemed to me that clever crafty arguments require rather more self-awareness than clever earnest ones. Huck Finn by blurting out, "All right, then. I'll go to Hell." was making an argument for the Heart having precedent over Reason as a moral guide. But he couldn't have explained it that way.
But a clever, sophist's argument? The sophist can't blurt one of those out since to lie cannily requires a great deal of rational preparation and spadework. The sophist has to know that he's being canny and clever and corrupt.
As Br'er Fox discovered, Pitch defileth. Advice: rebut but don't engage.
Here endeth today's lesson.
Rev. Anonymous
Jeffrey Davis
chek writes
================
The "AGW effort" (and the reality it fairly accurately describes) is "failing" in the same way as a laminated, armoured glass windscreen on a truck travelling at 60 mph is "failing" against a cloud of june bugs.
The bugs haven't the vaguest conception of what's oncoming, but can create a distracting mess
===========
Who are you trying to convince with this and just what are you trying to convince them of?
Do you believe that people will be convinced to change their behavior and possibly make sacrifices by insulting them?
That the AGW effort is failing is apparent to anyone with eyes and ears. My diagnosis is that a major part of the reason is the arrogant and ham fisted behavior of climate change actvists. I have seen nothing lately that challenges that conclusion.
For Chek
"Do you believe that people will be convinced to change their behavior and possibly make sacrifices by insulting them?"
They won't be convinced to change their behaviour even if every CAGW-alarmist-warmista volunteered to bathe them in a bath of expensive oils and rose petals every night. The thought of their grandkids spitting on their graves doesn't seem to do it, either.
J Bowers writes:
=================
They won't be convinced to change their behaviour even if every CAGW-alarmist-warmista volunteered to bathe them in a bath of expensive oils and rose petals every night. The thought of their grandkids spitting on their graves doesn't seem to do it, either.
====================
I see this as an implicit admission of the failure of the current AGW effort.
The failure resulted from the tactics of creating sides and trying to isolate the people who disagree by denigration and insult. This might work in a short term political situation in which voting by simple majority can rule the day. However it will not work in a situation in which major changes in social peceptions and behaviors are required.
Think prohibition and how it failed.
AGW as the new prohibition. It is even drvien by the same type of activism fueled by moral certainty.
"The failure resulted from the tactics of creating sides and trying to isolate the people who disagree by denigration and insult."
dljvjbsl forgets who created the "sides" to begin with and who started and maintains the vile campaign of character assassination against climate scientists.
Does he imagine that sweetening the tone will in any way diminish the massive and well funded disinformation campaign that is the real reason for failure of climate action? Does he actually believe Watts, McIntyre, Morano, Monckton, Exxon, the Kochs and News Corp. can be reasoned with?
--
Adam R.
Let's just say it in plain terms:
dljvjbsl is a concern troll.
There you go.
-- frank
'The failure resulted from the tactics of creating sides and trying to isolate the people who disagree by denigration and insult.'
'AGW as the new prohibition. It is even drvien by the same type of activism fueled by moral certainty.'
I suggest you take your own advice, though your words have provided a vivid psychological insight into how AGW is seen by those who would prefer to continue as usual. In return I'd offer to let you into my head but I'm still scratching it trying to think of any way in which prohibition might be a reasonable analogy.
Ribbing aside your advice about not jumping to insults is well taken, but I think you vastly overestimate the role such perceived behaviour has played in the 'failure of the current AGW effort', if indeed there has been a failure.
Currently there seems to be a highly naive perception on some climate blogs that any public disbelief in mainstream climate science is entirely down to the scientists themselves, as if certain interested parties haven't been busy muddying the waters for the last couple of decades.
Paul S
Adam R writes
=============
frank -- Decoding SwiftHack said...
Let's just say it in plain terms:
dljvjbsl is a concern troll.
There you go.
==============
And there you have the problem. The attitude that there are two sides - one which has seen the light and another which has not. Nothing is going to happen to resolve the AGW issue until that changes.
Claiming that one has all the answers does place on one the requirement to have all the answers. And when that turns out to be clearly not true then one's credibility is sorely harmed. AGW is not going to be addressed seriously until the climate science establishment realizes that and ends their magical thinking.
I am no concern troll. I make no secret that I believe that the climate science establishment is misguided and ineffective. I have no concern for either their specfic goals or their tactics. I believe that they have done and are doing great harm. The AGW issue is one to be considered seriously and not as some game of juvenile academic politics
"And there you have the problem. The attitude that there are two sides - one which has seen the light and another which has not. Nothing is going to happen to resolve the AGW issue until that changes."
I, at least, fail to see how changing my attitude that their are two sides will cause the *reality* that there are two sides to somehow disappear in some magic poof.
Does this troll really believe that those loudly shouting "climate science is a fraud!" will stop doing so if we start pretending they're not doing so?
"I am no concern troll."
...ooh, so protests dljvjbsl the concern troll, even as he continues to concern troll.
"I believe that they [climate scientists and activists] have done and are doing great harm. The AGW issue is one to be considered seriously and not as some game of juvenile academic politics"
Stop hemming and hawing. If you think climate scientists are wrong or lying, why can't you say clearly, 'I think climate scientists are wrong' or 'I think climate scientists are lying'?
Why do you have to resort to using the obvious bullshit tactic of saying 'I think climate scientists are right but they're not doing their outreach well and by the way I also think they're wrong'? Which, you know, is obvious bullshit?
Begone, concern troll.
-- frank
=======================
"Claiming that one has all the answers does place on one the requirement to have all the answers. "
=======================
Concern trolling with the optional strawman upgrade. Classy!
--
Adam R.
Oh dear me, dljvjbsl. I fail to see how my analogy insulted you, so much as contextualised your original assertion. Which you then later amplified with the further assertion that: "Nothing is going to happen to resolve the AGW issue until that [the insulting?] changes".
I could assure you that changes in the natural world of the type accurately predicted for the relentless ongoing warming the globe is experiencing are very likely to be the major drivers of policy, no matter how many pretty-pleases-with-sugar-on the reputable climate science community offer beforehand. The difference will be the dwindling number of choices left as crisis management becomes the sole remaining option with a non-negotiable opponent playing for keeps. To put it another way, the temperatures we are currently seeing in the Arctic Circle really don't give a toss who Jim Inhofe thinks he is.
However, in a society in which key strata have come to delude themselves that human politics creates its own realities - indeed multiple echo chambers have been constructed to ensure that self-reinforcing messaging is all you'll hear - you'll find such warnings easy to disregard.
"I see this as an implicit admission of the failure of the current AGW effort."
Nope, it's simple acknowledgment that 20% to 30% of the world's population will never accept any science that means they have to change their ways, especially when it means their admitting they may have fucked their grandchildren. Easy, really. A bit like the teabaggers who can't admit to themselves that they're first American generation to give their kids poorer education standards and less prosperity than themselves, and are trying to make it even worse. How did you like that admission?
@ J Bowers.
Thank you for the formatted links you provided.
Much appreciated.
You know, dlj, folk like Eli and MT were saying just that 10 years ago, and being trashed by the RPs and their ilk (in S Fred and co). So now, when it is too late for no regrets policies alone, why they are all in favor of no regrets policies.
Eli does not regret his attitude towards these guys posing that they just discovered this amazing (and thanks to them not sufficient) thing. Not at all.
Eli, can you give an specific example of RPJ trashing you or folks like you for your support of no-regrets policies from 10 years ago?
fraknk makes a request:
===============
Stop hemming and hawing. If you think climate scientists are wrong or lying, why can't you say clearly, 'I think climate scientists are wrong' or 'I think climate scientists are lying'?
================
My personal view is that climate science in its present state is not wrong. It is useless in that it provides no useful guidance to polcymakers.
Part of that uselessness comes from the academic politics played by the climate science establishment. I have already said that I do not share the concerns of the climate science establshment. I believe that their efforts are misguided and harmful
Is that specfic enough for you?
It is much more useful to read what people write and not to put words into their mouths. They may not share one's framing of an issue.
chek writes
============
However, in a society in which key strata have come to delude themselves that human politics creates its own realities - indeed multiple echo chambers have been constructed to ensure that self-reinforcing messaging is all you'll hear - you'll find such warnings easy to disregard.
==========
So people disagree and means must be found to work with them to create acceptable political solutions. Maybe if the climate science establishment accepted this fact and the futility of trying to change minds by hurling abuse then some progress can be made on the issue.
Obama is trying a method of triangulation. He matches the concerns for energy independence with other concerns in conservation and AGW mitigation. Perhaps he can meld a coalition that will bring benefits to all of these concerns since all of these concerns are justifiable and held by insightful people.
Perhaps AGW is a major issue with its own reality. There are other issues each with their own reality that are just as important. The inflation of the 1920s combined with other issues to create the fascism of the 1930s and the world war of the 1940s. This caused far more death and destruction to the world than AGW ever will. AGW is an important issue. However if other people do not share your prioritization of it, it does not make them fools or knaves.
"Perhaps AGW is a major issue with its own reality. There are other issues each with their own reality that are just as important."
Download and read THIS, and tell us which "reality" trumps that reality?
MT has a neat anecdote.
"The anecdote I like to repeat (I saw it in a comment somewhere by a "Z" (Zeke?) ) is of a fish viability study in Atlantic Canada. The scientists said the fish catch had to drop to X. The fishermen said they could not afford for it to go below Y. The Government, good liberals at the time, presumably, settled on the obvious (X + Y)/2 but (X + Y) /2 is substantially higher than X, so the fish population collapsed and now the fisherman have (another) Z which in this case stands for zilch."
Clock's ticking.
Now that Eli and Junior perfectly agree about the equations, it would be nice to focus on the point of contention, which is underlined by this sentence:
> It[defining decarbonization in terms of carbon intensity]'s a neat trick because it drives everything else since changes can come either from changing the numerator or the denominator and Roger knows how to play.
Will Roger Pielke Jr share with us his view on this comment?
Not answering gives a strong impression that Roger Pielke Jr does not want to resolve this point of contention.
If Roger Pielke Jr chooses not to respond to this comment, could he explain why?
Thanks!
PS: capcha is wonesti.
Willard writes
==================
> It[defining decarbonization in terms of carbon intensity]'s a neat trick because it drives everything else since changes can come either from changing the numerator or the denominator and Roger knows how to play.
Will Roger Pielke Jr share with us his view on this comment?
Not answering gives a strong impression that Roger Pielke Jr does not want to resolve this point of contention.
If Roger Pielke Jr chooses not to respond to this comment, could he explain why?
==============
RPJ has already pointed out this paagraph from page 75 of his book 'The Climate Fix". It answers your question
================
""Figure 3.5 shows that the primary reason for decarbonization since 1980 has been improvements in energy efficiency (i.e., energy intensity of GDP), while improvements in the carbon intensity of energy have contributed a smaller amount. If the world is going to simultaneously provide much more energy and meet aggressive targets for decarbonization, then decreases of the carbon intensity of energy supply are necessarily going to have to play a much larger role in future decarbonization than in the past. The good news is that reductions in the carbon intensity of energy can also contribute to diversifying supply and improving energy security"
================
Concern troll dljvjbsl continues to concern troll:
"My personal view is that climate science in its present state is not wrong. It is useless in that it provides no useful guidance to polcymakers."
Climate science's message is clear: Carbon emissions cause climate disruption. Therefore, to avoid climate disruption -- and you really do want to avoid climate disruption -- the world must reduce emissions pronto.
Do you think that the message is
(1) wrong, or
(2) a deliberate lie, or
(3) correct but you're just going to cover your ears?
Stop hemming and hawing and answer the darn question, troll.
-- frank
frank writes
===============
Stop hemming and hawing and answer the darn question, troll.
==============
Climate science is useless as a guide to policy makers. Since climate sensitivity is known to only a very wide range and that range includes both benign and disastrous outcomes, climate science offers no guidance to policy makers on the efficacy of any proposed policy. Will the policy be too little and therefore ineffective or will it be too harsh and damage the economy for no additional benefit? Climate science can offer no useful answers to these questions for policy makers and therefore is useless.
How much more explicit can I be? You may not like my opinion but my opinion is that climate science is useless.
Scientific theories are not "right" or "wrong". They are vehicles for making predictions. If these predictions "work" then they are useful. What "works" is doing something that can be of use in the real world. Working in the real world is about making concrete predictions that will be of use. Since climate science cannot do that (making vague contradictory claims doesn't count) then climate science as a theory is useless
How much more explicit can I be about this? I have made no secret of this opinion. That it doesn't fall into your self serving categories is not my problem. I am not part of the little culture war that you are fighting.
For a description of the fact of how truth values are assigned to scientific theories, this description of the pragmatic theory of truth seems useful to me
http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyepistemology/a/Pragmatic.htm
Search for 'useful' within it.
dljvjbsl,
The theory of gravity says that if you jump off a cliff you will fall.
This might have benign or disastrous outcomes: you might survive and walk away unharmed, or you might die.
By your logic, the theory of gravity is useless to "policy makers" (i.e.., those deciding whether we should jump off the cliff or not).
Dirk Hartog writes
=============
By your logic, the theory of gravity is useless to "policy makers" (i.e.., those deciding whether we should jump off the cliff or not).
=============
Newton's theory of gravity can is useful to policy makers since they can use it to determine the path that spacecraft would achieve to take to get to Jupiter. It is useful not "correct" (whatever "correct" means).
Climate science cannot answer questions that are useful to policy makers. Therefore, according to me, it is useless in its present state. We can hope that this uselessness can be resolved in the future since AGW is an important and possibly critical issue.
dljvjbsl, military commanders using your logic would hardly ever find military intelligence useful. Somehow they seem to manage to take battlefield decisions anyway, and occasionally even win wars.
Not unrelated (and catchy too):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSStH3C5dIw
But is there a word for dljvjbsl's perspective that since climate science cannot inform public policy, it is useless? Since the first premise of this argument is incorrect (climate science does inform public policy (see IPCC's Summary for Policymakers), but policy makers generally choose not to listen), the second part must also be incorrect.
Maybe the word is obstinate?
dljvjbsl,
What questions which are useful to policymakers do you think climate scientists are unable to answer?
"Climate science is useless as a guide to policy makers."
Therefore, the current policy makers have failed.
Better get some new ones pretty quickly, hadn't we?
andrew adams writes:
================
What questions which are useful to policymakers do you think climate scientists are unable to answer
==================
The ones about climate sensitivity. Just what is it anyway? What stabilization level is sufficient. Questions of that sort
Martin Vermeer wtires
====================
military commanders using your logic would hardly ever find military intelligence useful. Somehow they seem to manage to take battlefield decisions anyway, and occasionally even win wars.
=======================
Yes, this matches my thinking exactly. Decision making under uncertainty is a requirement for all leaders. However we should be frank with ourselves and understand that the decisions are being made with only very limited knowledge. Any decision that we take must be considered to be tentative and subject to change as the process develops. Decisions should have the ability to identify and measure progress.
Blind decisions such as the installation of carbon caps and the faith that some future as yet unknown technology will allow us to achieve them and that achieving them will solve the climate problem are just examples of magical thinking.. The example of Australia which is limiting carbon by imposing a carbon tax and yet expecting its coal industry to carry on by buying offsets is a clear example of the belief in magic and pixie dust as the solution to AGW.
Current climate science does not supply the policy makers with the tools that they need to address the problem. it is like a military commander who is told that there is an enemy somewhere over there with unknown strength and unknown weapons and with the commander also not being given any way to determine how a battle is progressing.
Climate science says there is a problem but doesn't indicate the severity with any accuracy or supply any tools to monitor any remedy. Climate science can make no predictions accurate enough for policy makers. Climate science is useless.
Will it be a little bit severe, or very severe?
You're right. Completely useless.
> The ones about climate sensitivity. Just what is it anyway?
In the 2.0-4.5 C range, at some confidence level (90% or 95%, look it up). Good enough?
> What stabilization level is sufficient.
Define 'sufficient'. That's not a scientific question. If you say 'two degrees', the science has a fairly definite answer on how to produce it (which you would know if you had done your homework).
It's not the science that is useless, it's you mate who are less than useless discussing it. Consider studying a subject before loudmouthing on it.
"Blind decisions such as the installation of carbon caps and the faith that some future as yet unknown technology will allow us to achieve them and that achieving them will solve the climate problem are just examples of magical thinking.. "
Interesting rhetorical style. For a 5th grader.
1) Reductionism that inevitable partial knowledge = "blind"
2) Reductionism in mocking any action since no action is perfect
3) Attempting to equate adult resolve in the face of uncertainties with "magical thinking."
Pitch defileth. Begone and never darken my towels again.
Jeffrey Davis
Anonymous Fredonian Minister-at-Large
Of course, climate science is useless at answering the type of question that politically-minded people such as dljvjbsl are very concerned with.
Such as "How can climate science make me look good and statesman-like without me having to put in much effort?"
Or "How can climate science make me look like a reasonable, erudite individual without me having to do any thinking or research or fact-checking?"
Or "How can climate science act as a justification for me to continue exactly whatever I've been doing?"
Or, most importantly... well, let's put it this way...
...as Shylock said in The Merchant of Venice, "Antonio is a good man." And so in the same manner, climate science is a useless science.
-- frank
dljvjbsl really wants comments over at his/her blog, why not make'm happy?
Then we can return to discussing the topic here.
Eh? eh?
Eli believes that Neven is differentiating between screwed or dead.
"Then we can return to discussing the topic here."
Hmm, I think I just accidentally returned to the topic with that Shakespeare quote. :)
-- frank
dljvjbsl sure sounds a lot like Tom Fuller.
dljvjbsl reminds me of a point I've been thinking about: from the policy viewpoint climate science can be divided into two parts, settled science and useless science ;-)
The settled science -- roughly what is in AR4, but YMMV -- is already plenty good enough to base policy on, and won't change much with new discoveries. The useless science is post-AR4, scientifically interesting but not politically. More precisely, it doesn't improve our policy-relevant understanding any faster than the mere progress of time does.
"Jim Eager said...
dljvjbsl sure sounds a lot like Tom Fuller."
Too polite. Just as stupid, though ...
As policy, a target of 2C of warming is a death warrant. At 2C, natural processes -- such as the release of GHGs from the soils of sub-Arctic regions -- will equal current human contributions.
Natural processes aren't subject to rhetoric, votes, or campaign contributions.
Jeffrey Davis
Or to opinions or to economic theories.
dhogaza writes
===============
"Jim Eager said...
dljvjbsl sure sounds a lot like Tom Fuller."
Too polite. Just as stupid, though ...
================
One thing that this very much brings to mind is the difficulty that the AGW movement is having in achieving its political aims. To go along with its magical thinking, we have absolute moral certainty. To deal with others who do not share their precise views, the AGW movement has tried the tactic of isolation. One does not have to deal with their issues but can isolate them with abuse and denigration. That this has not worked only convinces them that they must do it much more vigorously.
The tactic has no chance of working but does provide a strong sense of moral superiority. James Hansen has been writing about the tendency of AGW activists to fall into the practice of magical thinking and belief in the tooth fairy. Hansen writes this about belief in impossible solutions to a real problem. It also applies to practices that make any real solutions politically impossible such as tribalism and abuse of outsiders. If the AGW movement wishes to be taken seriously, it must move beyond the high school mentality of easy solutions. it must accept the limitations of current climate science and give up the pretences that it can provide knowledge that it is incapable of generating.
Climate science has not failed us but climate scientists have and failed us egregiously.
What do you suggest we from the AGW movement do, oh ye omniscient one?
Why, misquote Hansen, of course, Neven. The key to happiness is misunderstanding things in the correct way.
Neven writes:
============
What do you suggest we from the AGW movement do, oh ye omniscient one?
=============
I indicated that in my messge. I see my view as similar to that of James Hansen.
===============
If the AGW movement wishes to be taken seriously, it must move beyond the high school mentality of easy solutions. it must accept the limitations of current climate science and give up the pretences that it can provide knowledge that it is incapable of generating.
=============
That is AGW advocates should stop believing in pixie dust
I don't get it. Are you advocating we from the AGW movement follow Hansen's no-nonsense prescription for action?
Or are you advocating business-as-usual until those stupid, failing climate scientists can tell us exactly what will happen when, how and how hard?
Guys, you aren't getting it. Dljvjbsl is not trying to make an argument, or have a discussion. His only purpose is to disrupt this thread with post after post of mindless concern trolling. He hasn't posted a thing about the topic of this thread, has he? Just ignore it, and the troll will go away.
"To deal with others who do not share their precise views, the AGW movement has tried the tactic of isolation."
Not if you head over to the Telegraph's, Daily Mail's, and Climate Etc's comments sections. There are others, too.
Now Eli has often envied the troll parade at Deltoid and their efforts to keep the comment count up. Rabett Run otoh has always been a bit trollitarian, perhaps the cute little bunnies scare the ogres off, or maybe it is Eli's bad attitude (TM), so lighten up guys, you have to pay money for entertainment like that in the theater.
In the quote provided here by Roger Pielke Jr, nothing can be related to Eli's main point:
> It[defining decarbonization in terms of carbon intensity]'s a neat trick because it drives everything else since changes can come either from changing the numerator or the denominator and Roger knows how to play.
Considering that:
> Historically, carbon intensity has been controlled by increases in efficiency and has been denominator controlled. What the world needs is to decrease the total amount of emitted carbon.
auditors might wonder this choice of definition can be considered "pragmatist".
Did you post that over there willard, over there?
I believe the word is "sophist",
Sorry, Eli, too poor for Roger's bridge.
An interesting article on that topic:
http://scientistscitizens.wordpress.com/2011/08/02/making-arguments-expensive/
Interesting and relevant posts on the Oil Drum http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8185 about physical constraints on the idea of "de-energising" the economy whilst pursuing everlasting GDP growth.
As expected, the conclusion is that yes there ARE limits to growth...
EliRabett:
"lighten up guys, you have to pay money for entertainment like that in the theater."
But you see, I for one prefer to have the choice to refuse any "entertainment" which I happen not to have paid for. Just as I prefer to have the choice to refuse a "gift" of 1,000 cheeseburgers dumped at my doorstep, even if they're for free.
-- frankre
For those interested in crossing Roger Pielke Jr.'s bridge:
http://www.standupeconomist.com/blog/economics/thoughts-on-roger-pielke-jr/
http://www.standupeconomist.com/blog/economics/roger-pielke-jr-part-ii/
Crossing that bridge might be a good test for idealism.
I don't get (or accept) the belief that the "AGW effort" (whatever that actually means) is undermined due to scientists being too smarty-pants for their own good (thereby making those in denial feel thick and belittled ?); or due to blog commentators being nasty, horrid or sarcastic to those who troll, misinform or propagandise.
No disrespect to those who spend lots of time and effort running or commenting on these blogs, etc., but I would have thought that very few people in total are actually going to read or follow what happens on-line, especially with regard to climate change. Most people get their (dis)information from the likes of FOX and other Murdoch media outlets, as well as the (unfortunately) most popular right-wing/conservative newspapers - and having all those sources pervading rubbish, conspiracy theories, cod-science, misinformed opinion and blatant lies counts against any small effect from on-line, specialised sites.
That is what actually undermines the "AGW effort", by claiming that made-up, ideological opinion counters scientific fact.
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
@Eli
That is an awesome Humpty Dumpty picture, where did you get it? Humpty Dumpty was a childhood hero of mine and he remains so to this day. I still say he isn't dead, the wall wasn't high enough to crack him!
In my opinion, comes to reducing carbon goals is the easy part. The hard part is the timely and prioritizing them. When you are executing a plan, they always have to deal with the unexpected.
Post a Comment