I doubt Ted has thought if through to some sort of Social Darwinist thesis. He thinks capitalism(As he imagines it) is good and global warming is some sort of socialist hoax to undermine it. I've been on quite a number of forums and I find that bottom line almost all the denialists end up there. It really has little to do with the evidence. Interesting that Ted implicitly excepted my evolution vs. Biblical creationism analogy. I think he knows the game he's playing at some level.

I don't try to understand him. I barely even debate him, as such, because he evades questions he can't answer. All I do is refute him when it's convenient to do so.

TC

Yeah debating Ted is sort of useless. He avoids and diverts and takes everything back to his own recycled mantra world which generally operates outside any rational dialectic. However sometimes he comes up with an interesting link like the one from David Evans which leads me to even more interesting links. He's useful as a foil.

While I'm sure he might sometimes come up with an interesting link, I have to say he's not useful even as a foil.

See, I don't debate to win, or to convince people like him. I'm not sure he's even in the position where he'd be open to being convinced, regardless of the evidence, so this is probably a good thing. I'm not a missionary, so I don't claim that I'm perfect, that I know everything or that people should blindly switch their stances to match my own.

I debate out of the need to test my current beliefs against alternatives. If they can't withstand scrutiny from people who disagree, this is a sign that I either don't understand the issue well enough to debate it or I'm simply on the wrong side of the issue. Either way, my response is to learn more and possibly change my mind. Only by debating can I fulfill my intellectual obligations and keep myself from falling into the trap of holding onto beliefs that I can't support.

The problem I've found with debating Ted is that he doesn't test my beliefs, he just avoids them. There's some small value in clearly stating my stances, but the lack of useful feedback undermines most of it. As a result, I don't really try to debate him, as such. After one response, I'm pretty much done with him, since further conversation will yield no additional value.

By the way, I don't want to single Ted out or pick on him. This isn't personal. Debate isn't about liking or hating people, though it's often about finding some basis on which to justify respecting them. Ted is, in fact, the second person so far that I've been forced to effectively give up on in this forum.

TC

You guys having fun ewith the personal attacks? Thought that was not good here on AD.

Obviously we don’t agree but you two talk as if I make up all the skepticism and everyone else in the world is a believer.

As I have tried to point out this is not the case. But then I am sure you two could care less.

The good news is there is no way in cold hell a Big stupid Carbon Tax bill will ever pass the US Congress. So if you think rising CO2 is the end of the world – prepare now.

Mostly we were just talking about your debating style. That kind of criticism is pretty endemic around here. Saying your ideologically driven rather than evidence driven for the most part would be a pretty accurate statement don't you think?



Inaccurate straw man Ted. In fact I complemented you in effect for the David Evans link. No put downs for skepticism that I can see.


No legislation now but perhaps after a rise in the temperature another 0.5 deg. cen. and a few more Katrina level disasters under our belt(Unprecedented wild fires in the drought ridden West are a potential biggy) we might want to revisit a carbon tax here on AD.

Ya evidence driver you are? I post things you don’t like and the scientists are labeled “deniers” and brushed off – try again pal.



Don’t hold you breath – even Obama is not stupid enough to blow trillions on this boondoggle – especially when its clear the worlds largest producer of CO2 just gave the IPCC the finger.

Only when they are deniers and have had their nonevidence appropriately trashed. If they bring up interesting points of discussion like in David Evans case I think I treat them quite respectfully.


My reference was to the higher temperature future Ted. Try and pay attention.

. My reference was to the higher temperature future Ted. Try and pay attention.



Wake up please and smell the coffee. The models told us that we should see rising temperatures. You seem to trust them implicitly – I thing they are flawed at best.

Since the “models” seem to have missed the coming “cooling” event that is predicted as possible for the next 10 years I find it hard to believe you still buy it.

And yes I know – just normal variation, to be expected yady yady ………except apparently not expected by your infallible “models”.

Tell you what – if it gets warmer we will deal with it as we have in the past.

“Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...u-atd021207.php

“They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.

These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

“So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...-are-wrong.aspx

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...71211101623.htm

Infallible models? Charging windmills again Ted. I'm not aware of infallible models.


Runaway global warming lacks any precedent in human history. You'll have to come up with a better mantra.

Oh yes, and why would it come as such a surprise that the ocean would reflect the general recent stabilization of temperature on average for the earth as a whole. The oceans are part of the earth. Happy to bring that news to your attention.

I'll tell you what Ted the surest indicator of GW is the graph showing the steady decrease in the volume of world ice year by year almost without exception. When that turns around give me a call.


I think it's time to do a little review. Here are some graphs bearing on AGW, some of them quite familiar but forgotten apparently.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:..._Global_Warming

And where does it say we will have “Runaway global warming” - No president in “history” – which model is this? I see Al Gore –




You don’t get it – the MODELS did not predict it – it does not fit. How do I believe a model or prediction this poor will be correct 50 or 100 years out – I don’t.



Decrease in the north – increase south you mean.



http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1999/1998JD200092.shtml

PRECEDENT not PRESIDENT Ted.

gee am sorry - my spell checker did it.

Want to reply or just bitch?

While it is true that climate models have some difficulty in predicting temperature and precipitation over the Antarctic, it is deceitful to grab a secondary version of research results from some denier site and present it as if it were the research scientists conclusion that global warming isn't real. HERE is a better lay account of Professor Bromwich's conclusions.





You should take these papers as evidence that climate scientists who accept AGO continue to do honest research and report their result even when inconsistent with theoretical expectations, but that is inconsistent with your conspiracy theories!

A final point, the lack of the expected increase in precipitation over central Antarctica may be bad news since it would have produced a short term build up of ice helping to offset loss of ice in the Antarctic Peninsula and elsewhere in the cryosphere. In short, sea levels may rise faster than anticipated.



We've covered this before, but just to keep you from misinforming someone, HERE is a Realclimate response.

Please note that as soon as you use stupid descriptions of people or sites you don’t like such as “research results from some denier site” – I stop reading since your credibility for what follows goes to ZERO.



Have no problem with that – they just make it more clear just how poor the models are for predicting short term – and long tern temperatures. Which one would think would dawn on the IPCC – that is if they had not had their minds made up.




It also shows more holes in the models that predicted it. I hate to belabor the point sir. The damn models and not right.

Ted your perfect modeling fetish is getting to be a bore. As far as I know there is no such thing as a perfect model. When the model and the data don't match then inevitably you have a review to find out whether the data is off due to instrument error or some error in the modeling. When that precess is completed then if necessary the model is adjusted. It is completely normal to the process and doesn't require you to go running around howling at the moon every time a discrepancy appears as if AGW is in its final death throes.

And you also keep making a clueless assumption about the greater difficulty of long term predictions. It is generally much harder to make short term predictions than long ones. Here's a little dissertation on the matter.

http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/contrarians.php


The same applies to extreme weather events. We can't predict each one but can develop statistical probabilities about them as temperature rises.


I would doubt the latest evidence would support that southern increase. The best evidence recently is that on balance the Antarctic is losing more ice than it is gaining.

I had a well sourced graph that showed the average annual ice volume on a yearly basis, but for some reason I can't find it. However it definitely showed a consistent downward trend.

Edit. This is different from the one I remember but it will do.
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/glacie4.gif

Or this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ass_Balance.png

Huh?

When exactly was it that GW was proven to be "runaway?"

Does that mean that the earth will burn up after we are drowned by rising waters?

Does that mean that it doesn't matter what we do, because we've already passed the tipping point?

If so, shall we now wring our hands in vain, while squandering even more of our hard-earned wealth on yet more studies that promote even more earnestly wrung appendages and even more sincerely squandered wealth? To what end, other than to ensure that China replaces the US as an economic power and that certain elitist factions are made wealthier while the rest of us ride bicycles?

Ring up a "no sale" on yer Malibu Barbie Bikini Boutique cash register, pilgrim, 'cause I ain't buyin' it.

BTW, rather than read all 34 pages to find out if it's been discussed here, has the fact of warming on other planets in our system been addressed? If so, was it attributed to SUV's and flatulent livestock?

Just wondering.

I also wonder if those who have been convinced of CO2's nefarious nature would actually use a tool to eliminate, say, 60% of all atmospheric CO2, assuming that such a tool could be controlled enough to ensure that only a part of the gas was eliminated?

Hhhmmm, I think that would make at least as good a story as, "The Day After Tommorrow". Our hero discovers how to get the ocean to absorb more CO2, only to have the mechanism react differently in the real world application and the process gets away from him and all but a small part of the gas is absorbed.

The unintended consequence is, quite naturally, that plants start dying off, followed by mass starvation up and down the food chain. Suddenly, our hero seems naught but the arrogant nimrod, hoisted by his own pitard.

No CO2, no plants. No plants, no lifestock. No livestock, no people.

Of course, since there is no such mechanism, that could never happen.

Or could it?

Hmmmm, lime in the seawater might be our salvation; worth a try.

Winnowing your creative efforts, including the runaway solution(Now that's a new one), I generally take it you are with the denialist crowd including all the little "don't mess with my money" tropes.

However you did ask about runaway global warming and having brought it up I owe you at least a link. Doctor Hansen is the man. You could do a lot worse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-james-han...n_b_108766.html



Oh yes, welcome to AD.

Dingo answered your post pretty well so I will be brief. The quotation from Jim Hansen deals with one possible runaway scenario. Another is the warming of Arctic tundra areas as a result of the Arctic ice melt which in turn would release more CO2 and methane (a more powerful greenhouse gas) warming the planet even more and potentially beginning the release of methane hydrates from the continental shelves.

Yes, we have dealt with temperature change on other planets. They have little relevance to what is taking place on our own planet, however. If you want to delve into the subject more deeply, go to Realclimate.org and type "Mars" or "Venus" in the search field.

The reference to other solar planets does bear on your misconception about CO2 being either good or bad. It is necessary to have a concentration in the range that produces just enough greenhouse warming to provide for life. Mars has too little while Venus has way too much!

I do want to thank you for the link that led me to the discussion of breaking down limestone as a potential way of reducing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. (I bookmarked it). I was particularly struck by the attention given to reducing ocean acidification as part of the process. Discussions such as the ones on AD have convinced me that there is little chance of reaching enough of a political consensus to deal with global warming purely by reducing the release of greenhouse gases before we are locked into a disastrous scenario. Other technological proposals such as seeding the stratosphere with aerosols or adding iron to the oceans have proved to have some nasty side effects. I will follow this proposal and see where it leads. For those interested HERE is a direct link.

Good comments. In case dilligras thinks Hansen's comments are extreme he might want to check out those of James Lovelock the scientist who gave us the Gaia theory.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/e...urn-523192.html

Exactly so when we found out that the earth was cooling and may do this for 10 years did we change the “models”? How about when we question the relationship to water vapor? The answer is no. Dismissed is more like the response.

Any model you want me to invest TRILLIONS in that cannot predict 10 years out is worthless imo. And ten years out is not a short term prediction.

?


Very interesting – and it may not even cost trillions or require a carbon TAX. Opps liberals will never buy it without a tax. You have to punish people for their carbon sins you see.

And I see Dingo has labeled you as in the “denialist” crowd” – which means you can be ignored and your data dismissed.

Water vapor has been dealt with thoroughly on this thread. It hasn't been dismissed at all. As far as predicting 10 years out I guess you think we should get rid of all law enforcement because we can't predict a particular crime 10 years out. AGW is about general trends under conditions of increasing CO2 and makes no pretense of knowing exact consequences for specified periods. If you notice end of the century predictions they commonly have a 5 degree range of possibilities and even models predicting under the same conditions show great variations.


Well I don't know about your numbers but it's about where resources are best spent. They will be spent somewhere for energy. And following your principle I expect you to announce you are a complete pacifist because we cannot predict where the military challenge will be in 10 years.


I don't know if you are running for board victim Ted but I don't notice you being ignored or your data being peremptorily dismissed. If the data is weak it is perfectly legitimate to point that out and when you loudly declare things without any basis and divert into rants that are nothing but your unsupported opinion it is perfectly fair to hold a mirror up. And I'm not even mentioning your propensity for strawmen and diversions.

Water vapor has been dealt with thoroughly on this thread. It hasn't been dismissed at all. As far as predicting 10 years out I guess you think we should get rid of all law enforcement because we can't predict a particular crime 10 years out. AGW is about general trends under conditions of increasing CO2 and makes no pretense of knowing exact consequences for specified periods.

Sure it does – it makes prediction for the entire 100 years – and they started doing this over 10 years ago – so now we see they are wrong going out another 10 - thats 20 years,and you want us to overlook this – no way.



Yes and that’s part of the problem. They are wrong to the point that the conclusions imo are in serious question. The world temperature trend has been up – since the end of the Little Ice Age. Now it has leveled off and may get cooler for some time.

The models are not good enough yet for us to bet trillions on their predictions.

I don't know if you are running for board victim Ted but I don't notice you being ignored or your data being peremptorily dismissed.

Not me Dingo. You have to know that calling us deniers is silly and make you look like a fanatic – so maybe you should reconsider it. We just disagree is all – get it?

Yer pigeonhole is ruffling my feathers, pardner. Must we first always attend to the labels? Couldn't I just as easily have pegged you as a member of the syncophantic leftist moonbat "crowd?" But I didn't address you or your motives at all, did I?
Feel free to excercise such restraint yourself, should the mood strike you. I will gladly license you to plagiarize my posting methodology for a paltry sum--a mere pittance, if you will.



I could, indeed. But it would be just as correct to say that I could do better. For example.


So it's been warmer before, oui? Did the sea levels recede when it cooled off, if as the alarmists claim, they rise so dramatically when the climate is warmer? What about when the whole planet was covered with ice six miles thick? Was it mere greenhouse gases that caused all that ice to melt? I think not. Point being that there are many things that contribute to climate change, including volcanic eruptions which not only spew vast amounts of the dastardly culprit CO2, but are currently erupting all around the polar regions. In fact, it appears that they NORMALLY melt the polar icecaps, even when they're not erupting.

"Jeepers Batman, I wonder what molten lava does to polar sea temperatures!!??"
"I'd rather not say, Robin. I wouldn't want to anger the media outlets."
"That's just gay."
"Hey, you're the one in the red and yellow tights, sweetheart."

One might also argue that your Dr. Hansen is a small part of a much larger syndrome.



Merci, mon ami.

If you did a little research you would realize that this press release and article are just more fodder in the disinformation campaign funded by the fossil fuels industries. To begin with, all of the authors (Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Craig Idso and Sherwood Idso) are well known skeptics who may be good astrophysicists but whose climate claims have been largely discredited. The funding of the "study" is suspect on its face as is the journal of publication.

(From the Press Release - emphasis mine).

(See This Article).

The techniques of spreading doubt with misinformation from industry sponsored scientists is not new. It was used by the tobacco industry over 20 years to resist regulation and by CFC manufactures to discredit research regarding the developing ozone hole. (See The Skeptics and the Ozone Hole).

Including what you offered there are so many ways this doesn't work. First off comparing the twentieth century with a high temperature century in the Medieval warming period ignores what I have read that generally it is the 2nd half of the twentieth century that is used for comparison. In addition the whole argument is a standard denialist strawman. We all know that at some points in history there were times when the temperature was higher than it is now without the benefit of human intervention. If that were the case during the MWP that would prove absolutely nothing. The question is what has recently been the main driver of our warming trend. The evidence overwhelmingly shows it is human activities. More to the point what is the particular forcing that seems to be the main culprit? CO2 produced by humans; it's a slam dunk. And the fact that we have introduced from the bowels of the earth the amount of CO2 up to levels in the atmosphere it has not seen for millions of years creates a serious concern for a lethal GW future.

Are there legitimate debates around the issue of global warming? No question about it. But these debates have often been demagogued by denialists to make them into questions about AGW itself rather than simply arguments over details. This article goes into it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/science/earth/29clim.html

.

Ya sure – slam dunk – yet disputes over the accuracy of the “models” that prove themselves more wrong every day continues.

“Computer modelling of temperatures in the Antarctic have proved wildly inaccurate, scientists have admitted.
• Arctic ice melting 'faster than predicted'
• Eco-tourism 'major threat' to Antarctic

Projections of temperature and snowfall were as much as five times larger than they actually were.
A combination of five of the major climate change models covering the last 50 years produced figures broadly in line with the actual observed temperature and snowfall on the continent.

But when another comparison was made with the past 100 years the computer projections were between 2.5 and five times what they actually were.
"It does imply that with the ocean north of Antarctica and the continent itself, there are some significant issues with the current climate models."
The findings reported in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, suggest that current computer models of the effects of global warming may not be working for the remote Antarctic regions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...8/eatemp108.xml

But we should believe they work everywhere else. You HAVE to be KIDDING me.

A flaw in the model? I simply can't believe it! The whole AGW theory is destroyed.

I've seen the light. You've been right all along Ted. I'm preparing now for the coming ice age.

Know any good sales on down jackets?

Does a fast talking texan making squeaky sounds on a white board count?

Right now the most viable path would be to engage in the Picken's plan. Essentially it is developing the windier areas of the mid west and replacing natural gas consumption directly with wind. Personally I thought 22% output for wind was a little optimistic. I am an advocate of concentrated solar power. I believe the south west can lead the way in solar generation. Using existing materials which are available today my goal was 15% wind and 10% solar total energy generation. I believe both paths must be chased because we really don't know where the plateaus are at this point.

I'd also like to set the northeast on a geothermal plan because good heat retention relies on a water table of a certain height. The end result is a shift from conventional heating oil to gas/geoheat/grains. I'm somewhat more reticent at converting an entire fleet of cars onto natural gas. The tanks are bulky, necesitating SUV-truck type conversions as opposed to small cars.

If you are looking at any form of carbon tax I'd set up a compensation energy plan directly tied to whatever amount collected as a rebate for switching off of heating oil. The prices will need to affordable enough so that people can change out there existing systems and be price comparable. Longer term solutions are going to be dependant on whatever technology masters small scale use while providing measurable benefit.

On a more dire approach, more authouritarian measures are going to be needed. First, a concerted drop of all gasoline as a liquid fuel achieved. This will require a political establish that will leve with the people because anything less than an honest discourse will not convince every owner in America to abandon the gasoline engine. Gasoline to diesel replacement wills be dependent on expanding low sulfer grade (european spec) diesel. Obviously to implement this strategy the changeover of existing refineries which are old and having difficulty right now will be paramount. There will have to be a generous scrap plan allowing an avenue for people to get rid of their obsolete rides. Initially I envisioned this as a 20 year gradual plan but feel events are dictating a more rapid approach.

If we can get past the preliminary teething pains, we will have a fuel that contains more energy per litre than gasolone and is significantly less polluting. This avenue also leaves the door open for biofuel production at a later date. The only area that won't win are the refineries which are not capable of running at the increased temperatures that low sulfer diesal production mandates. A generous refitting plan will have to be in the works. This leads directly into the medium term goal of both hard and soft approaches, the homogenization of fuel blends. There are far too many blends to the existing system. As a result one region cannot ship extra capacity to another region because of the different refining requirements. This has to stop immediately. If combined with new grade diesel, even the Californians who typically are holdouts will see that a this change is a step in the right direction from both a volume standpoint and an emissions one. I am uncertain how practical electric plugins will be at the moment because of the limitations of coal and nuclear production. The result will be an upward spike similar to the one seen recently in food. If we can refurbish the electrical grid great, pursue the plug-in.

The back up plan will be setting up an outreach program through the missions, churches and NGO's for rest areas for an ever growing number of homeless people. The ones who are desperate and stupid are going to be the dangerous ones. If we do not account for them they will bring the whole system down.

Ya the sacred models you depend on are not really very good. And if you and the other fanatics think this country will ever drink the IPCC cool-aid to the tune of 6 trillion you are smoking some really good stuff – esp. with China – the world’s largest and fastest growing producer of CO2 on the sidelines – it will never happen.

So if the world is ending just don’t start any long books.

More on models and how poorly they predict anything.

“noted by Pat Frank, Demetris Koutsoyiannis’ new paper has been published, evaluating 18 years of climate model predictions of temperature and precipitation at 8 locales distributed worldwide. Demetris notified me of this today as well.
The paper is open access and can be downloaded here: www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671
Here’s the citation: D. KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. EFSTRATIADIS, N. MAMASSIS & A. CHRISTOFIDES “On the credibility of climate predictions” Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53 (2008).

Abstract “Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”
Par Frank observes: “In essence, they found that climate models have no predictive value.”
http://www.climateaudit.org/

Hard for me to judge the specifics of your plan Trouble. Certainly moving more towards wind and direct solar is good. What's the big deal about diesel? Assuming it comes from fossil sources isn't it more or less same old same old?

I guess what puts me off about your approach is its not clearly thematic. As I keep emphasizing, people need to know where we are going in the future in broad terms and why. I also think it all needs to be outlined 1, 2, 3, .... for clarity. For instance I would probably be inclined to use an approach something like this.

Plan A(Longer term)
General principles.
A. Get off of fossil fuels.
B. Move toward locally controlled alternative energy approaches.
C. Support lowering population to long term sustainable levels.
D. Set standards for acceptable per person energy use.
E. ......................................................

Specific programs.
1. Carbon tax, based as much as possible on real costs of fossil fuel use.
2. Facilitating roof top photovoltaics.
3. Support family planning clinics with strong emphasis on the value of npg(Negative population growth).
4. Turn stupid suburban front lawns into organic truck gardens.
5. ....................................................................

Plan B(Short term crash program)
General principles.
A. Try to maintain a minimal stable order and avoid anarchy. If tragedy is going to happen let it be orderly.
B. Store necessities like food and water for emergencies.
C. Create areas of regional responsibility with authority assigned and police backup.
D. Assign highest priority to agricultural production, transportation and storage.
E. Making it clear starting new families is not a priority.
F. .............................................................

Specific programs.
1. Create ordered refugee centers and institute rationing.
2. Medical centers would be provided employing triage system, recognizing limitations of care in crisis.
3. Farmers and fisherman would enjoy special support in terms of resources and protection as opposed to say lawyers and accountants.
4. A strong system of community centers would be set up to provide education, including family planning, resources and a place for people to mingle and work out there problems. A gathering place for bottom up genius in solving on going problems is important.
5. Transportation would be treated as open ended, involving legs, bicycles, horses, vehicles etc. whatever worked.
6. Citizen police forces with strong experienced leadership would be created.
7. .........................................................................

I realize one can shoot holes through a lot of my proposals but it is the approach I advocate. Principles for the situation broadly out lined followed by specific programs to carry out these principles. You should be able to stick it on a sheet of paper or two and have something clear and understandable so both the operational heads and the folks are clear what principles inform the process what rules are assigned and what the programs and available resources are.

Dingo I am not going to bother shooting holes in all of your proposals, because frankly shooting fish in a barrel is too easy.

But seriously, most of this is rather scary and looks like some kind of left wing fascism.

I need to address a few of these.

C. Support lowering population to long term sustainable levels.

So are you saying the government should be telling the citizens how many children they can or cannot have? What happened to a woman's right to choose? If a woman chooses she wants to have a baby who are you to tell her she cannot?

D. Set standards for acceptable per person energy use.

Ahhh rationing by the government. It seemed to work so well for the Soviet Union when people were standing in lines for blocks waiting to get bread.

4. Turn stupid suburban front lawns into organic truck gardens.

I see you are taking away more freedoms here. So we cannot choose to have a nicely manicured front lawn?

E. Making it clear starting new families is not a priority.

You should feel quite fortunate your parents did not follow this suggestion of yours.

....

Sleeper my comments were built around present or impending crisis and related to a conversation I was having with Trouble about averting disaster.

It wasn't about your self-indulgence middleclass suburban libertarianism with endless resource buffers and social nets to prop it up.

Just an additional note, Hitler was into forced breeding. My thoughts on population are premised on a collection of wise folks coming together and concluding that maybe a sustainable population was about half a billion. If that point could be argued as sound what would you suggest to bring about that population goal? I never indicated anything overtly coercive to bring that about, just strong education and peer pressure.

A further thought. As for your precious front lawn you might want to check out the "Victory Gardens" of the 2nd World War period.

Congratulations! Here is your Godwin award.

You pretty much have exposed your true feelings on the subject.. You want government control on personal freedoms.

This isn't about a scientific debate anymore with you. You think people should live a certain way under your own personal idea of what utopia is to you, I get it now. I and many more want no part of it.

I am a big believer in diesel use because of the energy content per unit compared to gasoline. We need to shoot for something higher until a more radical technology like Japan's hydrogen car can become viable here. Diesel uses all the existing infrastructure can yield 30% greater combustability and a offers 20-25% reduction in emissions. Ethanol does not come anywhere close because we haven't perfected cellulosic conversion on a massive scale yet.

The reason I strayed away from the 1, 2, 3 plan is because it is sounds like "eliminating poverty", something so broad the problem needs definition. While there is nothing wrong with broad statements, people can interpret by degrees how far we should go in one direction. Sleeper's statement was a wonderful example.



Broad statements really leave one open to attack and I think he went overboard. I know you meant a cooperative program probably focused on soft approaches like better access to birth control, elimination tax subsidies for dependents and so on. I know from the debate you are a consensus guy. Your statements make you sound more draconian than they were meant to be. Your broad statements allow the reader to essentially take things to an extreme. Remember when you accused me of being self defeating? I am details guy, and when I legislate I leave nothing to the imagination because to do so means allows the opposition an opportunity to distort - and that's precisely what he has done.

Here is another great example of distortion:



While offereing nothing constructive the above phrase allows what has been a common occurance, legislating tighter fuel requirements and once again, injecting worst case scenarios and imply irrationality. Come to think of it this is why military pilots are loathe to report UFO's of any sort. Ridicule. Had the reader thought about it, the EPA works this way and attaching strong-arm socialism is a method of ending the debate.

Now elements are already of both your A and B plans are taking hold on their own throughout various cities. On a volunteer interest only though.

Your short term B plan worries me though. There is no real successful way of implementing it. There already is talks of both buffering existing water tables, (follow the utility stocks) much like the strategic oil reserve. The grain reserves have been commented on sporadically over the years. The grains stocks used to have a higher limit and at times have had less than 15 days stock left in North America. So attention is being focused there too. More regionally than federally. Federally it is all political theatrics, so if you take on a federal role Dingo, expect scepticism.

You last bit can of advice can be defiled fairly easily, let me show you.

1. Create ordered refugee centers and institute rationing.

The only way countries can ration foodstuffs is by employing tariffs - which not surprisingly lead to more tariffs by responding countries. I think simply allowing a NGO to review and advise the situation with frequent government donations would be more effective.

As for the refugee centers I would expand the medi clinics and offer incentives for churches to play a greater role in assisting the public.

2. Medical centers would be provided employing triage system, recognizing limitations of care in crisis.

Access is going to be an issue but I agree with you. Access should not be determined on how many dead presidents you have in your wallet. But to pay for this you will have to take money from somewhere else. So where dear ruler are you gonna cut?

3. Farmers and fisherman would enjoy special support in terms of resources and protection as opposed to say lawyers and accountants.

Big agribusiness is the death of this country. I can see them implementing schemes to take advantage of this stipend before a drop ever hits the small time farmer. I'd rather eliminate corruption instead of supporting one profession at the expense of another. You will lose you support within the business community.

4. A strong system of community centers would be set up to provide education, including family planning, resources and a place for people to mingle and work out there problems. A gathering place for bottom up genius in solving on going problems is important.

In other words you are replacating the social worker lodge found on many reservations. The 'safe place' from crime, drugs, and uncle Willie.

5. Transportation would be treated as open ended, involving legs, bicycles, horses, vehicles etc. whatever worked.

This is way too broad an approach. There will be mass migrations of people because at some point no one will be able to commute long distances anymore. Most of America is based on the commute. The entire layout of cities is at odds with limited energy use. Practical initiatives must be put in place where once the carrying capacity is met in one area, incentives need to be created to draw people to another area and tie it together with rail so mobility does not dry up.

6. Citizen police forces with strong experienced leadership would be created.

This can spiral dangerously in several directions. We are already experiencing a police state complete with plastic flying surveillance bugs, cameras, and laws which do anything but add security. I realize you are implying more local based militias, but trust me anyone who puts something together will automatically be given a bad name if they refuse to cooperative (read bend over) for the government. Again you put together a militia they will label you the next David Koresh whether it is warranted or not. The cry wolf approach, also known as terrorism is specifically designed to prevent congregations and assemblies. Good luck on that.

You haven't got a clue about me or what I think. But in your pinched little ideological Limbot world how could you.

Enjoy life while you can. Someday you might have to cross swords with reality and it won't be pretty.


I have no particular argument here. I just wasn't clear on the advantages of diesel.


The outline approach doesn't preclude refinement of meaning. It just disciplines one to greater concission and is easier to take in when you are looking for guidance and rules. Remember we are talking about a condition of breakdown, impending and actual, which doesn't lend itself to simply a discursive style when trying to communicate with a broad population. I do think however you need both the broad principles and the programatic which is why I used my probably poor examples to at least point in that direction.




My impression is Sleeper thinks the world is some sort of extension of his present comfortable suburban environment and he probably listens to Limbaugh and Hannity or folks of that ilk. He seems to have no sense of history or what happens under crisis conditions. I post on a number of forums and his responses are frankly generic. Just predictable attack mantras without substance or context. Funny thing these supposed small government free market guys can't wait to invade an Iraq on a whim and don't see the irony.

As for rationing we rationed in the 2nd World War, particularly gas, but also lots of other commodities. All countries do that under forced scarcity conditions. It isn't some sort of Stalinist conspiracy. If the practicalities dictate it then we do the best we can.



I'm thinking more regionally.


Again rationing in this country worked pretty well in the 2nd World War. Under crisis conditions how is it avoidable? And any institution with facilities that can offer help should be encouraged and supported, I agree.