The UN says democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming

This is from Hot Air, UN climate chief declares communism best for fighting global warming:

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

China may be the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggling with major pollution problems of their own, but the country is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming says Figueres.

“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”

It did seem a bit daft even for a climate expert working at the UN. So I went and followed the trail of threads back to the original Bloomberg Report where her comments may be found. More insane than you can imagine:

China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said.

The nation has some of the toughest energy-efficiency standards for buildings and transportation and its support for photovoltaic technology helped reduce solar-panel costs by 80 percent since 2008, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, said yesterday in an interview at Bloomberg News headquarters in New York.

The country is facing growing public pressure from citizens to reduce air pollution, due in large part to burning coal. Its efforts to promote energy efficiency and renewable power stem from the realization that doing so will pay off in the long term, Figueres said.

“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest.”

China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.

Key policies, reforms and appointments are decided at plenums, or meeting of the governing Communist Party’s more than 200-strong Central Committee. The National People’s Congress, China’s unicameral legislature, largely enforces decisions made by the party and other executive organs.

The political divide in the U.S. Congress has slowed efforts to pass climate legislation and is “very detrimental” to the fight against global warming, she said.

Think of that the next time the IPCC puts out one of its reports on behalf of the UN.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

184 Responses to The UN says democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming

  1. Lysander

    What’s hotter?

    Four consecutive days of 41C or 6 consecutive days over 40?

    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/66895618 (Melb Great Heatwave of 1908). ABC will today have us believe that today’s weather is hottest ever since records began in 1855.

  2. JC

    Throw the fucking asshat out of the US and tell her not to ever return even with a UN passport.

  3. face ache

    oh, good grief. Flabbergasted is how I feel. Discombobulated even. wtf as well.

  4. Art Vandelay

    Oh yeah, communism is just great for the environment:

    China’s smog sunrise

  5. Peredur

    “They actually want to breath air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. Urgh! I always did hope someone would ask JuliaG if she had seen any carbon dioxide lately …

  6. Cold-Hands

    “They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,”

    Replacing older less efficient coal burning powerplants with newer plants (also coal fired) is how the Chinese are reducing particulates, not by going full retard with wind and solar. Those technologies are largely being exported to the gullible gweilo, making huge profits for the Middle Kingdom.

  7. The UN is a poor political organisation for fighting child sex abuse.

  8. Gab

    United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming.

    Well she would say that given the UN is a Dictator’s Club.

  9. Baldrick

    Well in part she is correct.

    The Greens have the communist-esque ideology to combat climate change.

  10. David Brewer

    So, China is cleaning up its power plants to cut air pollution. Fine, but what has that got to do with carbon dioxide emissions? Chinese emissions are not only now the largest of any nation, they have accounted for nearly 90% of the global increase over the past decade.

    Figueres, like many bureaucrats, believes a kiddies’ version of the global warming tale, where pollution = carbon dioxide = global warming. But worse, she also believes in fixed policies to address the problem (photovoltaic cells, energy efficiency measures) that are just plain good as far she is concerned, regardless of actual results.

    Her comparison with the United States only underlines this. The US is the only large country that is reducing emissions. This is not from policy but from technology. Figueres couldn’t care less about such results, since they aren’t following her policy playbook.

  11. samuel j

    If the UN paid Chinese wages she might not be very happy.

  12. I suspect we’ve reached peak democracy. It’s catastrophic anywhere but the first world, and caustic there. Not that the UN attacking it is a great message, but still.

    Time to move on to something else.

  13. WhaleHunt Fun

    The utter dribbling cretin! I seen supporating snakebites on pigs with more brains than this demented loon. The stuff the chinese can see is the nitrous oxides and sulfur compounds released by poor combustion, ineffective smokestack treatment systems and sheer bloody minded corruption and poverty driving poor behaviours.
    How many times do these retarded warmist filth need to be beaten before they can understand that carbon dioxide is odourless and colourless. So it is NOT the CO2 that the Chinese public worry about. No one gets lung cancer from bloody CO2
    FMD.
    Bring back the death penalty for stupid.

  14. steve

    The UN and democracies do not mix. You cannot support both. We should pull out of the UN……………….or at least consider the pros and cons.

  15. WhaleHunt Fun

    And tell the Navy to aim lower next time they’re firing warning shots at the lowlifes. Low enough to assist in the skuttling.

  16. Tel

    Very convenient the way the enemies of democracy needed to invent a problem they alone could solve.

    Mind you, democracy could indeed solve the global warming problem, providing 51% of people really believed there was a serious problem. Since that is not the case, democracy is operating as advertised on the box and filtering out the problems people don’t care about and promoting the problems they do care about.

  17. Another fake charity long overdue for defunding.

  18. John Labaj

    Mirror, mirror on the wall who is the dumbest person of them all? Christiana Figueres certainly comes close to claiming the prize.
    Not to be outdone, however, we have a number of serious contenders in Australia. Perhaps their only handicap when pitched against Christiana is that they don’t have as wide exposure. Thankfully, not many in UN watch ABC or read Fairfax press. Thankfully, in that context, many in the UN do not read at all.
    Just imagine how embarrassing it would be for Australia if statements and comments of professors Flannery, Karoly and other Australian’s “top climate” scientists, let alone politicians made it to New York, UN or worldwide.
    My question is how these “experts” do end up in their positions. Who is Christiana Figueres? What is her qualification or expertise? What is her remuneration and is it based on her qualification or expertise? Who appointed her to her position? Was she appointed by “democratic” process?
    Perhaps someone can answer these questions, and, if there are no satisfactory answers, someone may point out to whomever is in charge of this august organization called United Nations, that they have a dummy heading the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change !

  19. Des Deskperson

    But Marxist- Leninist jurisdictions lie, they always have. They can do so because, even now, they continue to have a monopoly on public information.

    I’d no more believe the Chinese Government on any aspect of environmental science than I’d believe that Cuba has the best public heath system in the world or that the Soviets lost no cosmonauts whatever in the space race.

  20. Bruce of Newcastle

    I like it! What Ms Figueres is saying is that you can build lots of coal fired power stations, lock up any environmentalists and journos who complain, have a couple of fig-leaf dinky global warming policies and she will put her thumb print on all of it. Sounds good.

    If anyone criticises this, all you need to is say Ms Figueres said it was OK.

    UN…Utopian Nutcases.

  21. Andrew

    China’s world champion CO2 production.

    Due to the way that communism solves all mankind’s ills.

    I was in Beijing. Massive windfarm on the way to the Great Wall – you can’t miss it. No doubt pointed out to the gweilo on the way through. Then I was in Xian. City of 8M people – about the same as SYD and MEL combined. Airport, hotel, conference, ring-road, Terracotta Warriors. I covered much of the city and surrounds. Didn’t see any windmills. If I didn’t know better, I’d almost suspect that the Beijing windfarm was just for show and they don’t really have any interest in wind generation at all for the locals.

  22. You all want to be me

    Communism will stop Tony Abbott & his croneys taking Australia back to the dark John Howard years.
    I look forward to telling you Catallaxy people that your assets have been reallocated to real workers one day.
    I read this blog for months & I can’t believe what I read here.
    Australia so rich, but so many people poor.
    We need to give communism a go.

  23. You all want to be me

    Australia so rich. But so many people poor.
    We need to give communism a go.

  24. Leo G

    The UN says democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming

    On the other hand, global warmists say the UN is a good political system for fighting democracy.

  25. Infidel Tiger

    I read this blog for months & I can’t believe what I read here.

    Shocking isn’t it.

  26. craig

    Lets face it, if the IPCC and Al Gore can share a nobel laureates, then this quack of a woman can aspire to one also. Im off to get a panadol for my headache……have a good night!

  27. J.H.

    Socialism is always the ideology of deceit……… The truth is, is that China’s economy emits more CO2 than any other country now and will continue to emit even more in the future.

    China lies and the UN helps to lie for them.

    ““They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said.”….

    But of course the really big lie is “Carbon Pollution”……… She deliberately misapplies particulate air pollution as carbon dioxide and morphs into the meme of “Carbon Pollution”….. and like always in Socialist propaganda. The slogan is misleading, the context is a lie and the opposite is the truth.

    Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a trace atmospheric gas that is overwhelmingly beneficial to life on earth.

  28. Baldrick

    Just in case you thought global warming wasn’t just for progressives, Christiana Figueres proves you wrong!

  29. .

    I look forward to telling you Catallaxy people that your assets have been reallocated to real workers one day.

    Haha, how’s your office in the Marrickville Library?

  30. .

    You all want to be me
    #1155620, posted on January 17, 2014 at 8:12 pm

    Australia so rich. But so many people poor.
    We need to give communism a go.

    The Great Leap Forward Backwards!

    Now everyone can be poor save for Communist aligned Greens and ALP members!

  31. John Mc

    Australia so rich. But so many people poor.
    We need to give communism a go.

    Why? So we can all go back to being equally poor and miserable with no opportunity and have to start again?

  32. Le Chiffre

    So the UN has outed themselves as deceitful communist totalitarians.
    I’m shocked, shocked I tells ya!

  33. sdfc

    Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a trace atmospheric gas that is overwhelmingly beneficial to life on earth.

    So you’re overturning the science of how the planet heats on a hunch.

  34. hammy

    China is also able to implement policies because its political system avoids some of the legislative hurdles seen in countries including the U.S., Figueres said.

    The future of the planet is definitely with socialist policies. Well recognised. You wouldn’t have the fascists on this site recognise this, of course.

  35. Peewhit

    The UN, bureaucracy of the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats. China is less communist in many ways than Oz. Try to get free hospital care in China. Appeal for unemployment benefits, or a single mothers pension and see how much you get. Even a 75 year old depends on the family, or keeps working.

  36. Baldrick

    hammy
    #1155699, posted on January 17, 2014 at 9:09 pm
    The future of the planet is definitely with socialist policies.

    Spoken like a true self-interested Maoist.

  37. I am the Walrus, koo koo k'choo

    I read this blog for months & I can’t believe what I read here.

    Tell me about it! I’ve been reading it for YEARS, mate, enjoying every minute. And all of a sudden a bunch of Tories turn up bitching that the marriage of two blokes who’ve lived together in Surry Hills for 20 years would mean The End Of The World, and how drug prohibition is the ant’s pants.

    It has gone to the dogs.

  38. John Mc

    The future of the planet is definitely with socialist policies. Well recognised. You wouldn’t have the fascists on this site recognise this, of course.

    Did you read the bit about what collectivism has done to the environment? Where is this paradigm shift that means collectivism will now start protecting the environment to a higher standard than the past?

  39. Habib

    Having the UN giving the Micks a serve over kiddy fiddling is akin to Ivan Milat giving Bradley Murdoch a going over for hitchhiker culling. How many women, kids, blokes and slow farm animals have been interfered with by the blue hat brigade?

    Why are we giving them money?

  40. Infidel Tiger

    Tell me about it! I’ve been reading it for YEARS, mate, enjoying every minute. And all of a sudden a bunch of Tories turn up bitching that the marriage of two blokes who’ve lived together in Surry Hills for 20 years would mean The End Of The World, and how drug prohibition is the ant’s pa

    It’s the anti free trade and love of protectionism that gets my gander up.

    It’s natural to think that two blokes getting hitched is ridiculous but to think that the Chinks are going to buy up Oz and tow it back to Guangzhou takes the cake. Most of the drug prohibitionists seem drunk, so I can forgive them for that idiocy.

  41. jupes

    It’s probably been decades since the UN passed its used by date.

    It’s about time Australia led the world out of this pathetic dictators club.

  42. jupes

    Most of the drug prohibitionists seem drunk, so I can forgive them for that idiocy.

    You are most gracious (hic).

  43. I am the Walrus, koo koo k'choo

    Having the UN giving the Micks a serve over kiddy fiddling is akin to Ivan Milat giving Bradley Murdoch a going over for hitchhiker culling.

    Having been an altar boy, a student of the Christian Brothers, and a boy chorister at one of our larger cathedrals, I wake up every day wondering how it is that I managed to walk between the raindrops and not be abused by some emotionally retarded, predatory god-botherer.

    I don’t care who is belting the micks, I am cheering them on and urging them to hit as hard as they can.

  44. Bruce of Newcastle

    So you’re overturning the science of how the planet heats on a hunch.

    No sdfc we’re falsifying a high CO2 sensitivity hypothesis which doesn’t fit the empirical data. The climate sceptics’ hypothesis of the Sun and ocean cycles plus low CO2 ECS does fit the data. This happens all the time in science, last big example being the stress hypothesis of ulcer causation. That was a billion dollar quack cure industry which disappeared overnight. This is a trillion dollar quack industry, which has bigger staying power but will go the same way.

    Lefties want to save the world which doesn’t need to be saved. What else is new?

  45. I am the Walrus, koo koo k'choo

    It’s natural to think that two blokes getting hitched is ridiculous but to think that the Chinks are going to buy up Oz and tow it back to Guangzhou takes the cake.

    Agreed. It is completely ridiculous. But so are Rugby League, daytime television and organised religion. That’s no reason to prohibit them.

    Agreed on free trade and international investment. Nothing is as stupid as the mob howling ‘Nooooo, we won’t allow you to give us your hard earned money!!’

  46. Habib

    Crikey Walrus, you must’ve been an ugly tacker, the cassock-lifters have even been known to have a chop at a ginger.

  47. Botswana O'Hooligan

    G’day face ache, what a wonderful word discombulated is, and that’s exactly how we crew of a high speed corporate jet felt on our first approach to Beijing way back in the early nineties when we descended out of the clear blue into smog right down to the minima and found ourselves only a few yards behind a 747 that probably couldn’t see either so we “went around” at the speed of heat and had another “go” while they landed. My problem then, and actually right now as I think of it, was that I lived in the “great Satan” where the waters were pristine, the salmon abounded, the sky an incredible blue when blizzards were absent of course, and when the wind blew from either China or Japan we were inundated by acrid smog. The punch line of course was that the great Satan was bad and Japan and China were “good.” I rapidly became discombobulated all those years ago and went back to the great Satan where one could fish and walk in a pristine environment without too much let or hindrance and where the likes of Mr R Brown and Ms SHY would be shot on sight as they should be. The moral of the story is that whatever they like to call the natural cycle of good old Mother Earth, she isn’t listening and is simply carrying out business as usual and China is still going to do what they are good at, polluting, and balancing a bucket of odure on each end of a longish pole. Me, I am pleased that they didn’t invent the match when they discovered that voiding urine on charcoal produced an explosive substance else they would have also invented the first astronauts at the same time!

  48. I am the Walrus, koo koo k'choo

    Crikey Walrus, you must’ve been an ugly tacker, the cassock-lifters have even been known to have a chop at a ginger.

    Yeah I know!

    ‘Thankyou, Lord, for making me uglier than a cane toad’.

    And the years haven’t been kind, either.

  49. Rabz

    UN climate chief declares communism best for fighting global warming

    Yes, a monstrously evil, banal, totalitarian system of ‘government’ responsible for the deaths of at least 100 million people in the twentieth century is just what western democracies need to have imposed on them in order to fight a non existent problem.

    Needless to say, Figueres and her ilk are insane.

  50. John Comnenus

    I think the UN meant to say that we want to tell all you idiots how to live your lives and that doesn’t work as easily when the Bogans get to vote. Gramsci might have liked the long march through the institutions, but we want to rule NOW! fuck off China and the UN and the horses you rode into town on.

  51. Abbott could cause socialist head explosions in the millions by the mere suggestion of an international club that only included democracies. I’ll bring the popcorn.

  52. John Comnenus

    I’ll bring some popcorn for that show as well.

  53. HK_Brother

    When a Lefty cannot get things done through democracy, you can be assured they’re willing to use “the ends justifies the means” paradigm to get their way.

    This is why this disgusting UN parasite likes the idea of Communism. To use Govt force to impose upon others…Thinking they know what’s good for all.

    Little does this UN moron know, she’d fit right in with Communist China’s secret services and their tolerance for those who speak ill of the Chinese Govt.

    She can at least by honest and admit she’s a Watermelon.
    (Green on the outside, Red on the inside).

  54. Australia so rich. But so many people poor.
    We need to give communism a go.

    Fair call. Let’s make Tassie communist. All that want it can move there, all Tasmanians that don’t can leave. No support from the capitalist mainland. Sayonara, sucker!

  55. HK_Brother

    She can at least by honest and admit she’s a Watermelon.
    *Correction*
    She can at least be honest and admit she’s a Watermelon.

  56. sdfc

    This happens all the time in science, last big example being the stress hypothesis of ulcer causation.

    So you have overturned the science on how the planet heats. And your theory is?

  57. David

    And tell the Navy to aim lower next time they’re firing warning shots at the lowlifes. Low enough to assist in the skuttling.

    Whale old chap your sentiments are admirable but it is spelt “scuttling” as in “to scuttle” or put one’s method of staying above the waves below them.

    Except of course for that strange breed of sailorpersons [current non sexist label as proscribed by the Admirables in command of HM's water borne thingies] who go to see in ships designed to sink; i.e. submarines.

  58. Habib

    Except they’re boats, not ships.

  59. David

    True but “picky” Habib.

    They are, whatever you want to call them, un-natural.

    Sort of like gay whales – useless but with lots of seamen.

  60. Habib

    Always been highly suss about sperm whales.

  61. The UN have been a bunch of Far Quits for a long time.

  62. dismissive

    So you have overturned the science on how the planet heats. And your theory is?

    I’m happy with the null hypothesis. Nothing else has been proven.

  63. Milton Von Smith

    They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at

    She’s the United Nations climate chief but doesn’t know that CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas. That tells you everything you need to know.

  64. Pusnip

    Figueres statement should be unremarkable to any open minded, non-ideologically blinkered person, who understands the relative strengths and weaknesses of different types of political systems. Her statement does not mean that she sees communism as a better system overall, as some people commenting on it have implied. It is simply a recognition of the centralisation of power and decision making within a communist system and the benefits that can have for pursuing a limited range of national-level goals where the otherwise beneficial qualities of democratic, mixed economy systems become evident.

  65. samuel J

    Surely if she was serious, she’d want us to follow North Korea?

  66. Tom

    So you’re overturning the science of how the planet heats on a hunch.

    So, like a 12-year-old girl in a Wizard of Oz world, you bought the climate models propaganda with zero incredulity?

  67. jock

    The UN has just cancelled an exhibition in Paris which was to celebrate 3500 years of Israel. Sponsored by Canada, Montenegro and the Wiesenthal Centre the exhibition was cancelled due to pressure from the Arab League, who claimed it would impact on the peace process. The UN are a disgrace . It appears the UN needs to be split between democracies and those who espouse totalitarian views. eg the Chinese, Arabs etc. It might not then be “united” but at least we wouldnt have to cowtow to this Marxist/Leninist/Fascist/Nazi crap.

  68. MT Isa Miner

    steve

    #1155537, posted on January 17, 2014 at 7:19 pm

    The UN and democracies do not mix. You cannot support both. We should pull out of the UN……………….or at least consider the pros and cons.

    What cons? What do we get out of the UN and the rest of the stinking entrails that spill out from it?
    it’s not just the 0.5% of GDP in aid that Labour aimed for. The cost of complying with the legal victim industries crap has to be added on.

    Maybe even more importantly, I object to the mental cost of Australia admitting and admiring sucking on the left ideology teat of the UN. It is poisoning our way of thinking.

    And so say Jupes, Steve at the Pub, Habib , Comenus and the Whisperer and the rest of us.

    Abbot, pull out for fucks sake, but keep your mouth shut about it.

  69. Dianeh

    They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at

    She’s the United Nations climate chief but doesn’t know that CO2 is a colourless, odourless gas. That tells you everything you need to know.

    Oh, she knows alright. She thinks that no one else knows, that we are all too stupid. Clearly the plan of dumbing down the population is going too slowly, too many people see through the ridiculous UN propaganda.

  70. Tom

    Didn’t want to pollute the OT, so I’ll put this hysteria from the weather girl at ShakeMyHead.com here:

    As searing temperatures swept across the country this week, Australians got a strong indication of summers to come. Peter Hannam asks if we are prepared for hotter days.

    The Figueres faction — the world’s collective of communist anti-civilisationists — have good reason to believe they’re within sight of global domination since their innermost power fantasies are read back to them everyday by the howler monkeys of the Fucktard Media Industrial Complex.

    BTW, I am prepared to bet Hannam is a cross-dresser.

  71. Louis Hissink

    UN climate chief say communism is best for fighting global warming. [We would say it differently: The political myth of global warming is best for building communism.] Hot Air 2014 Jan 16

  72. Louis Hissink

    Whoops link did not paste

  73. Tel

    Oh, she knows alright. She thinks that no one else knows, that we are all too stupid. Clearly the plan of dumbing down the population is going too slowly, too many people see through the ridiculous UN propaganda.

    You see the same deliberate conflation of carbon particulates with carbon dioxide in a lot of warmist propaganda. They obviously spend a bit of time getting their talking points aligned.

  74. Bruce of Newcastle

    So you have overturned the science on how the planet heats. And your theory is?

    Sdfc – In one word: clouds.

    The IPCC modellers admit they do not understand cloud formation and their models cannot accurately model clouds.

    There are a lot of papers which show the empirical cooling effect of clouds is much more than they assume in their models, by both translating heat up the air column as latent heat of evaporation (thus bypassing most of the CO2) and diffraction of incident solar radiation back out to space.

    The modulation of cloud cover by the solar dynamo explains most of the solar effect, which if you looked at my third link you will see works rather well in modelling high quality long term temperatures. The ~60 year cycle in the oceans explain most of the rest.

    I have many more papers and data which I can link for you if you wish.

  75. Paul

    I’m surprised they would give away their real intentions like this so openly. maybe they feel Global governance is now achievable.

  76. rickw

    Why are we still in the UN ???

    Budget issues could be fixed by this simple act alone, and to boot we would get to sit back and laugh at “the dictator and autocrat show”, which is essentially what the UN is.

  77. Rabz

    Why are we still in the UN ???

    Beats me. What annoys me is that our ongoing participation in this freakshow is never even questioned, much less discussed.

    The UN is an abomination and we are better off being well out of it.

  78. dismissive

    Does anyone know how much we “donate” to the various UN entities annually?

  79. Gab

    Why are we still in the UN ???

    Because “we” along with the rest of the lemmings believe the emperor is wearing fine silk threads.

    It will take a leader with courage and determination to stop sending our taxes to the UN. Abbott is certainly not that leader.

    From the government website:

    Australia is firmly committed to effective global cooperation, including through the United Nations (UN) and its specialised agencies and regional commissions. Engaging with the multilateral system is a key pillar of Australia’s foreign policy. This is because we live in a complex, inter-connected world where countries cannot address on their own some of the major challenges we face today.

    Australia is a founding member of the UN, an active participant in UN institutions for over 65 years and the 12th largest contributor to the UN regular and peacekeeping budgets. Australia held the first Presidency of the Security Council in 1946 and provided the first military personnel as peacekeepers under UN auspices a year later, to Indonesia. Australia is one of the top ten contributors to the World Health Organization; World Food Programme; UN Children’s Fund; UN Central Emergency Response Fund: UN High Commissioner for Refugees; and UN Trust Fund for Indigenous Populations.

    I cannot fathom how many billions we “donate” to the UN. Image if that money was used for da infrastructure here instead of giving it to the dictator’s club.

  80. dismissive

    There seem to be an unending number of UN bodies with their hands out. Perhaps Hockey should quantify the total spend in the budget rather than have broken down into Health, Climate Change, etc

    I think we would all be horrified at the totals.

  81. Louis Hissink

    Global governance has been achieved – just too many froglets here concentrating on the saplings and missing the forest.

  82. Communism the best method for dealing with climate change? Have they ever seen the environmental standards left behind at the end of the Soviet Era, which places like China still use today?

    Communism is good for one thing, killing people, and maybe that’s what they want. global communism in order to reduce global populations…

  83. Pusnip

    As non-ideologically blinkered students of political systems understand, communism is in fact good at more than just one thing, though not many more. Central planning and control works well for the pursuit of a small number of national goals where the resources of a country can be focused through dictate on achieving those goals. It is far less effective at multiple and diffuse goals, where mixed economies that rely on markets augmented by government regulation to address significant externalities show their clear superiority.

  84. .

    Central planning and control works well for the pursuit of a small number of national goals where the resources of a country can be focused through dictate on achieving those goals.

    How come they lost the Cold War?

  85. “As non-ideologically blinkered students of political systems understand, communism is in fact good at more than just one thing, though not many more. Central planning and control works well for the pursuit of a small number of national goals where the resources of a country can be focused through dictate on achieving those goals. It is far less effective at multiple and diffuse goals, where mixed economies that rely on markets augmented by government regulation to address significant externalities show their clear superiority.”

    Even in a dictate driven goal oriented enterprise like the Soviet Union they failed to compete against their free(er) market enemies. It may be so that they out-produced the West in quantities of some military material, in realities when it came to producing the highly advanced weapons systems they needed to guarantee their own survival they couldn’t cope and bankrupted themselves trying. Let us not forget the greatest period of goal oriented centralised economic activity in history occurred during WW II, when the United States of America out-produced everyone and made money doing it.

    Communism much like its bastard love-child Socialism are ideological failures dreamt up by someone who would have been persecuted in the Soviet Union he inspired.

  86. Pusnip

    You are right, – , that defence is an area where communist systems have performed relatively well. Space exploration is another. Hosting the Olympics is another.
    That is not to say that Communist systems will always outperform a democratic, mixed economy like ours or the Europeans or Americans in these areas.
    Obviously, the outcome of the Cold War has multiple and complex causes, and the political systems of the main players are only one factor among many. I am not an expert on the specifics of the CW, however, and so will not comment on the extent to which communism helped USSR to expand its influence our stave off defeat for a long as out did.

  87. .

    I am not an expert on the specifics of the CW, however, and so will not comment on the extent to which communism helped USSR to expand its influence our stave off defeat for a long as out did.

    But you think they are great at national defence.

  88. gabriangaga

    Why are we still paying Members of the United Nations? Why do we degrade ourselves even being seen with these thieving left wing thugs?

    It’s a bigger” protection” racket than the Mafia could ever hope for with the Dons dishing out the
    $multi billion “favours” for votes Just ask Labor.

    Feck Malcolm ,Greg and Co and give the U.N. the boot once and for all and bring Australian Sovereignty
    back home where it belongs.

  89. Essentially, where there is a requirement for either technology or capital/money communism fails, the greater the technological need the greater the capital/money required for it to work. So, if you need millions of cheap AK-47s a communist nation may produce them faster and produce a greater over-all volume, but, when you get the other end of the scale the reverse happens, if you need to manufacture highly advanced technologically superior warships or aircraft communism simply can not compete.

    It was this race that destroyed the Soviet Union, by trying to keep pace with the technological advances in their competing nations they drained so much of their near-stagnant capital pools to such an extent their economy out-right failed. Of-course you could argue that the US and like minded Western European states merely avoided the same face by kicking the can further down the road through debt-leverage but that has yet eventuate.

  90. Pusnip

    Lots of good points, sedentary, although of course the U.S. is a mixed exponent, not a free market, and that was especially so during WW2. I think most observers, and certainly noon-ideologically driven observer, consider mixed economies to be superior for most problems that have been encountered to date, although of course AGW with its significant global externalities raises some particular challenges.

  91. .

    think most observers, and certainly noon-ideologically driven observer, consider mixed economies to be superior for most problems that have been encountered to date, although of course AGW with its significant global externalities raises some particular challenges.

    Please tell us how France is going right now, along with their ETS.

  92. Pusnip

    Rigorous, non-ideologically driven students of political or other systems do not rely on single country, single period observations.

  93. .

    Yet you did not make your argument in a similar manner. You’re a non-rigourous, ideologically driven student.

  94. The problem with European Socialist States (that’s what they are) is that they’re trying to do both, they’re trying to a Soviet style minimum social standard (whilst pinning it to a Western affluent living standard) and be free-market competing in capital/money intensive technological fields. It just doesn’t work, they’ve subjected themselves to indebted slavery because the reality is Airbus is never going to beat Boeing and BMW and Mercedes are never going to beat GM or Ford (if run by competent management).

    Europe is finding out the hard way that by borrowing incredible amounts of money to ensure a societal minimum requires an even greater level of economic activity than they envisaged.

    Which is unlike the US of A where the debt issue is a result of government failing to understand the relationships between taxes and spending, and debt to economic out-put.

  95. Rabz

    Communism is a bust and AGW is a load of anti-scientific, fact and evidence free horseshit, parsnip.

    Deal with it.

  96. Fred Lenin

    True Democracy is rule by Referenda,no decision or Spending without permission by a yes vote in a Referendum.curtailing politicians legnth of service to one term for life,abolishing paeties and Aparatchiki.minimising the number of governments,politicians and public servants, repealing a huge number of stupid laws. Getting out of the untidy nayshuns and other PC Crap,getting Everyone to work .and getting rid of Troublesome migrants,.that would be a good start to a Real Democracy,ridding government of Self Interested Prats

  97. Aristogeiton

    This seditionary guy is a genius. He knows everything about everything.

  98. Oh come on

    Someone’s drunk Beijing’s Kool-Aid. What a credulous dope!

  99. Pusnip

    As before, I’ll leave the juvenile ‘playing the man’ stuff to you, -.
    I’m more interested in ideas.

  100. Oh come on

    Fred Lenin – otherwise known as mob rule. That sounds like a terrible idea. Democracy must be yoked by superior law that guarantees individual liberty and cannot be touched by politicians or pitchfork-wielding simple majorities.

  101. Aristogeiton

    Pusnip, are you seditionary’s sock puppet? Isn’t it funny how lefties pretend not to have any ideological predelictions? The thing they are missing is principle.

  102. “This seditionary guy is a genius. He knows everything about everything.”

    It is merely the convergence of history, economics and political sciences. It isn’t like the numerous failings of the Soviet Union haven’t been well documented, nor the parallels between their ideas and the modern day European states undrawn.

    Your attempt at a passing jibe merely exposes you, not I.

  103. Funnily enough, when i play Civilization, i usually choose communism (shock! Horror!). Sure, it’s not as productive, but i get to play god and not have to worry about citizens’ concerns. Of course, i’m only murdering pixels, but if i were one of those pixels, i’d hate me.

    The point is that only those would-be leaders would ever want communism.

  104. .

    Pusnip
    #1156459, posted on January 18, 2014 at 11:58 am

    As before, I’ll leave the juvenile ‘playing the man’ stuff to you, -.
    I’m more interested in ideas.

    Without a whiff of irony – your head is up your own behind, junior.

  105. It was this race that destroyed the Soviet Union, by trying to keep pace with the technological advances in their competing nations they drained so much of their near-stagnant capital pools to such an extent their economy out-right failed. Of-course you could argue that the US and like minded Western European states merely avoided the same face by kicking the can further down the road through debt-leverage but that has yet eventuate.

    It wasn’t merely technology. The relatively unproductive nature of communism (and socialism) in terms of wealth creation meant that for the same amount of production, the Soviet Union spent a far higher proportion of GDP than the west, to the point where it was unsustainable. The faults you describe of the west is not capitalism, but crony capitalism.

    Every instance of corruption and waste detracts from the total potential production (and hence wealth) of a nation. Whether that is communist, crony capitalist or despotic in nature is irrelevant. What makes capitalism more successful is its lower waste and corruption. It’s weakness is the potential for capitalism to be replaced by crony capitalism.

  106. Oh come on

    Trouble with communism on Civilization is that, once you get to a certain size, you either have to tax the crap out of everyone and all your cities dissolve into revolt, or you go broke. Which makes sense. The only solution is to switch to a more productive system.

  107. Aristogeiton

    You’re a pompous, undergraduate turd seditionary.

  108. Oh come on

    Who is this rigorous, non-ideologically driven student of political or other systems pretentious twit? It’s been a while since I’ve come across such an undergraduate, doctrinaire analysis. Although it’s particularly amusing when postulated by someone who clearly believes they’re writing something terribly astute and insightful.

    Scram, Junior. Don’t you have a 1,200 word ‘take home exam’ to attend to?

  109. “It wasn’t merely technology. The relatively unproductive nature of communism (and socialism) in terms of wealth creation meant that for the same amount of production, the Soviet Union spent a far higher proportion of GDP than the west, to the point where it was unsustainable. The faults you describe of the west is not capitalism, but crony capitalism.”

    Of-course, that is true, by being unable to raise significant capital returns on their unproductive investments made it much harder to compete in the realms of capital intensive technologies. And yes, especially Europe hasn’t had a real capitalist economic system for decades.

    “Every instance of corruption and waste detracts from the total potential production (and hence wealth) of a nation. Whether that is communist, crony capitalist or despotic in nature is irrelevant. What makes capitalism more successful is its lower waste and corruption. It’s weakness is the potential for capitalism to be replaced by crony capitalism.”

    Very true, though, another threat to capitalism is the stagnation of capital flows at either end of the wealth spectrum.

  110. “You’re a pompous, undergraduate turd seditionary.”

    And you’re inability to either grasp the substance of the discussion or keep up with it is my fault how exactly? If this is too much for you, you may find any corner of your choosing to sit.

  111. Aristogeiton

    another threat to capitalism is the stagnation of capital flows at either end of the wealth spectrum

    Oh brother!

  112. Aristogeiton

    @SeditionaryI
    #1156505, posted on January 18, 2014 at 12:30 pm
    [...]
    If this is too much for you, you may find any corner of your choosing to sit.

    Yes, I admit. Your genius is too much for me. Now get a haircut.

  113. boy on a bike

    Every now and then, we get chocolate biscuits at work. The last lot were melted together – the horror!

    However, we don’t need to go commo in order to prevent this problem. Transporting them to the office in an esky on hot days would do the trick.

    Mitigation – how simple is that?

  114. egg_

    More of our betters wishing to ‘suspend democracy’ for their totalitarian agendas – who’d've thunk it?

  115. Trouble with communism on Civilization is that, once you get to a certain size, you either have to tax the crap out of everyone and all your cities dissolve into revolt, or you go broke. Which makes sense. The only solution is to switch to a more productive system.

    Indeed. It’s uncannily representative of the real world in so many respects. Start in a desert and see how well your civ goes!!

  116. Very true, though, another threat to capitalism is the stagnation of capital flows at either end of the wealth spectrum.

    Elaborate? Like Ari, i have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

  117. Aristogeiton

    The Beer Whisperper
    #1156566, posted on January 18, 2014 at 1:17 pm
    Very true, though, another threat to capitalism is the stagnation of capital flows at either end of the wealth spectrum.

    Elaborate? Like Ari, i have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

    Jesus, don’t encourage him to pontificate. The whole problem with his posts is that they are all ‘elaboration’ (that is to say, special pleading and obfuscation). It’s so bloody boring.

  118. Oh come on

    Yes, reading that kind of pseudo-intellectual drivel will lower your IQ.

  119. “Elaborate? Like Ari, i have no idea what that is supposed to mean.”

    Capitalism requires a certain amount of capital to remain in motion, much of the GFC was a response to the mechanisms of capital flow no longer functioning. In-stead of banks refusing to lend each-other money as a mechanism of stopping capital flow the same capital stagnation can occur if the consumer stops spending or taking on new debt, or the opposite, the wealthy retain their capital in fixed investments or keep the capital in cash.

    Nothing pseudo-intellectual about it, everyone had the entire GFC and the related reporting on such to pick up the basics.

  120. .

    Capitalism requires a certain amount of capital to remain in motion

    Pseudo intellectual drivel indeed.

    Tell a bunch of economists and finance industry types what working capital is – thanks for the tip, pal.

  121. Capitalism requires a certain amount of capital to remain in motion, much of the GFC was a response to the mechanisms of capital flow no longer functioning.

    Recessions are part of the natural economic cycle, of which relative capital flows are a result, however the depression and the GFC were amplified recessions due to government interference and crony capitalism. In the former, high tariffs interrupted trade, restricting the free flow of goods and hence capital, while the GFC was in response to many factors including monetary manipulation by central banks and crony capitalism by the banks and industries, responded with yet more monetary manipulation and crony capitalism. As bad as recessions are, left alone recovery is quick and poorly managed or positioned business is removed by creative destruction.

    The flaw of capitalism is that it creates winners and losers, the latter of which yell loud and long until they are bailed out by everyone else i.e. politics, not capitalism itself.

  122. “The flaw of capitalism is that it creates winners and losers, the latter of which yell loud and long until they are bailed out by everyone else i.e. politics, not capitalism itself.”

    Everything is subject to randomness and chance, there are always going to be winners and losers, I wouldn’t say it is necessarily a flaw in the system.

    As for the GFC, causation was varied, consequence was the restriction of capital paralysing the market’s ability to deal with the causation. The need for any stimulatory cash injections from state players is another matter.

  123. Infidel Tiger

    The flaw of capitalism is that it creates winners and losers

    No, it creates unequal winners.

  124. “Tell a bunch of economists and finance industry types what working capital is – thanks for the tip, pal.”

    Really? Because anyone who has ever been near an economics text book would have gotten the original reference, perhaps this is just another forum for try-hard pretenders such as yourself?

  125. JC

    As for the GFC, causation was varied, consequence was the restriction of capital paralysing the market’s ability to deal with the causation.

    That’s just a variation of the Liar’s Party “complexity of the push/pull factors”.

    The need for any stimulatory cash injections from state players is another matter.

    Nope it’s not. It shouldn’t have happened.

  126. JC

    Capitalism requires a certain amount of capital to remain in motion,

    Every single system does, you meathead. For instance equipment needs to be replaced after the end of it’s useful life. Buildings require either refurbishment or pulling down. Even in Stalinist North Korea.

    Stop talking shit, or get out of the sand pit.

  127. “That’s just a variation of the Liar’s Party “complexity of the push/pull factors”.”

    So a singular “thing” caused the GFC, and that was?

    “Nope it’s not. It shouldn’t have happened.”

    Even if the worst case scenario happened?

  128. .

    Really Sed, please tell me, what the ‘original reference’ for that is?

    You’re a sanctimonious bullshit artist.

  129. You all want to be me

    If everyone with 100,000 gave 10k away, it wouldn’t impact them too much – losing 10%.
    But if that was given to people with only 10k, that would increase their money by 100%.
    It seems only good thing to do.

  130. .

    You all want to be me
    #1156883, posted on January 18, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    If everyone with 100,000 gave 10k away, it wouldn’t impact them too much – losing 10%.
    But if that was given to people with only 10k, that would increase their money by 100%.
    It seems only good thing to do.

    Completely asinine.

  131. JC

    But if that was given to people with only 10k, that would increase their money by 100%.
    It seems only good thing to do.

    We actually give from 0 meaning the return is huge. If only they they received 10%.

    You really are an idiot sed.

  132. JC

    That wasn’t Sed it’s the other moron.

  133. JC

    So a singular “thing” caused the GFC, and that was?

    Pretty much yea. The Fed tightened too hard on the misapprehension the developing world commodity demand shock was demand led. It cranked on the breaks and sent the economy into a tailspin realizing far too slowly the mess it created.

  134. JC

    Dot

    Leftie central command is really sending out it’s more, how shall we say, mentally impaired “talent” of late. The latest crop are just abominable.

  135. You all want to be me

    English not my birth tongue.
    Sorry, don’t be racist I don’t speak like you.

  136. Fisky

    If everyone with 100,000 gave 10k away, it wouldn’t impact them too much – losing 10%.
    But if that was given to people with only 10k, that would increase their money by 100%.
    It seems only good thing to do.

    If that’s the average level of “analysis” coming out of the Left nowadays, we’ve got nothing to worry about (until the next change of government – then we’ve got MUCH to worry about and it may be time to think about renouncing citizenship).

  137. JC

    Typical.. when all else fails leftwinger runs a microsoft Spell/gram check. It’s almost 100% safe.

    You appalling dickhead, You.

  138. Fisky

    English not my birth tongue.
    Sorry, don’t be racist I don’t speak like you.

    It’s not your language, but the quality of your ideas. They suck. Really, really suck.

  139. Fisky

    Oh, you were making fun of JC.

    Yeah, I’ll take dodgy grammar over shit ideas anytime.

  140. “Pretty much yea. The Fed tightened too hard on the misapprehension the developing world commodity demand shock was demand led. It cranked on the breaks and sent the economy into a tailspin realizing far too slowly the mess it created.”

    That’s your opinion, not necessarily shared.

  141. JC

    That’s your opinion, not necessarily shared.

    I’m heartbroken

  142. Fisky

    The quality of Left-wing troll around here is really in the dumps. Whoever left the farm gate open has much to answer for.

  143. “I’m heartbroken”

    Do you require the services of a whaaambulance? hahaha

  144. Gab

    The quality of Left-wing troll around here is really in the dumps.

    Facebook and Twitter trolls, the dregs of da shocialist barrel.

  145. .

    I’m still waiting for that reference Sed, you economics text book reader you.

  146. Tom

    Doomlord, if you’re lurking, when you get a mo, could you reach down into the spaminator and tell me why it went all nanny on three innocent banned-word-free versions of a comment it delivered to outer space about half an hour ago?

  147. Leo G

    If everyone with 100,000 gave 10k away, it wouldn’t impact them too much – losing 10%. But if that was given to people with only 10k, that would increase their money by 100%. It seems only good thing to do.

    Err … Possibly 95% of equivalised households have assets in excess of $100k, while less than 1% have less than $10k. The suggested transfer would have those with up to $10k increasing their money by more than 10,000%, not merely 100%.

  148. .

    Yes…old widows ought to liquidate their assets to help uni students get drunk. Or something. It’s about da equity!

  149. sdfc

    Tom
    Take a look at how Bruce argues a case and compare it to your poor effort.

    Bruce
    Saying water vapour is the biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect, or that clouds play a role in cooling as well as heating the planet is not overturning the accepted science on how the planet heats.

    However saying co2 is not a greenhouse gas is.

  150. sdfc

    JC

    The Fed tightened too hard on the misapprehension

    You need to explain why you reckon simple rate cuts weren’t suffice to bring about a recovery as they have in every other downturn over the last 80 years.

  151. Bruce of Newcastle

    Sdfc – If you looked at the links I gave you will see that I use an ECS of 0.6 C/doubling due to CO2. That is saying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its effect is offset from the Arrhenius theoretical value by the negative feedback effect of the water cycle.

    That ECS, which happens to be about the TCS measured using the CERES and ERBE satellite data, fits the data very well indeed once you include the full effect of the Sun and the oceans.

    CO2 alone does not explain the temperature record last century, let alone the 250 years that my small model does. Incidentally the model has also been pretty accurate for the last two years, if you look at the times of posting of the graphs. The model is unchanged and all the information you need to replicate it is in the description below the first graph.

    The point of science is to develop hypotheses then test them. The IPCC’s hypothesis has failed over and over. The sceptics’ hypothesis has succeeded over and over. Unfortunately a certain side of politics rather prefers the wrong hypothesis as a useful tool to get what it wants. That is an unfortunate desire, since reality mugs incorrect hypotheses rather brutally. I hope they come to their senses.

  152. Paridell

    The Soviet Bloc excelled at some things through central planning (the Stasi pioneered the NBN’s beloved fibre-optic cable), but the same central planning misallocated resources on a huge scale. Ideology led to policies such as “waging war on Nature”, making rivers flow in the opposite direction, drying up the Aral Sea or building showpiece cities on land that was permanently frozen, just to show that the socialist system could do it. Not to mention directing individuals into occupations based on who-knows-what criteria. The system also relied on a heavy input from industrial espionage, like the carbon-copy B-29 equivalent. In the end, it could not renew itself economically or politically and simply fell apart.

    So much for the Soviet Bloc. In retrospect, it was laughable. The idea that Communist-State-Capitalist China now provides a better model for anything is even more so.

  153. Fisky

    And they couldn’t even compete militarily, despite the vast resources sunk into the sector. The Israelis went something like 100-0 against the Syrians in the 1982 air war, the Afghans fought the Soviets to a standstill, and everywhere that Soviet operatives were trying to get a foot in, there were plenty of weapons flowing in from the other side. Add to that the effect of Reagan and Thatcher’s domestic policies; once it became clear they weren’t budging and were actually rolling back from social democracy, there was never any hope of the system merger that the Soviets and eurocommunists were holding out for. The only thing left to do by the second half of the 80s was to negotiate the terms of surrender.

  154. Fisky

    In retrospect, it was laughable.

    An absolute joke. They couldn’t even build a fucking PC in the 1980s. 20 more years of that and they’d be on a par with North Korea by now.

  155. Bruce of Newcastle

    Sdfc – Do you agree that an ECS of 0.6 C/doubling is harmless?

    The arithmetic is this:

    Increase in pCO2 since prehistory = +120 ppmV (from baseline 280 ppmV)

    Doubling pCO2 from now would need +400 ppm, which at ECS of 0.6 C/doubling would raise global temperature 0.6 C.

    Increasing CO2 +1200 ppmV from today would therefore raise temperature 1.2 C from today.

    Increasing CO2 by +2800 ppmV from today would raise temperature by 1.8 C from today, which is still unlikely to be dangerous.

    To raise pCO2 by +2800 ppmV would require 2800/120 = roughly 23 times as much coal and oil to be burnt that we have since we learnt fire. Not going to happen. There isn’t enough fossil fuel in the world.

    So if AGW is harmless why do anything? Why kill people by malnutrition because you burn corn ethanol in cars, or mash birds and bats using wind turbines? If AGW is harmless all these policies are immoral.

    That is why I am passionate. Poor people are dying because of green policies right now.

  156. Fisky

    One neglected chapter of Cold War history is the various overtures that went out to the Soviets in the 1980s from opposition social democrats in the US and the UK. Ted Kennedy promised them a nuclear freeze if they would help the Democrats’ election campaign, while Neil Kinnock was sharing notes with the KGB about coordinating their efforts to unseat Maggie. Traitorous scum they were. Social democrats belong in prison, and in front of firing squads.

  157. Bons

    A cold hand emanating from 1939 wraps itself around my heart when I read of these assaults against democracy. Fascism is now a global phenomena. The totalitarians have achieved their goal of using the peoples’ money to destroy the peoples’ freedoms.
    We are on the cusp of a disaster that will not be averted by the appeasing political class that has captured the LNP, who frankly, like their supposed opponents are equally practicing student politics. What is so frustrating is that the media, humanities academics, unions and the public servants are easy targets for a leader with courage and the capacity to say what working Australia wants to hear a leader say..

    Glad that I am old, because our children are going to witness a century of chaos.

  158. Fisky

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1225637/How-Kremlin-hijacked-Labour-Diary-Kremlin-insider-reveals-hold-Soviets-Labour-politicians.html

    In 1981, Foot led a big delegation to Moscow, to discuss multilateral disarmament with the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev. ‘Dear Comrade Brezhnev,’ Foot said while holding Brezhnev’s hand in both his own.

    In December 1984, Kinnock went to Moscow accompanied by, among others, the young Charles Clarke and Patricia Hewitt – both to become ministers in Blair’s government – to see Brezhnev’s successor, the senile Constantin Chernenko.

    Chernenko read his brief to them and listened indifferently to Kinnock’s verbose response. However, the Russian promised he would help in the Labour Party’s attempts to oust Margaret Thatcher from power.

    Chernyaev notes that in 1985, Kinnock again turned to Moscow for support, sending a shadow minister to the Kremlin for advice on how to topple Thatcher, who was in her second term in office.

    The diarist recorded: ‘We have discussed everything with him. I took it upon myself to promise him everything they wanted from us, to beat Thatcher and get to power.’

    It is a crying shame that the punishment for treason, execution, was abolished under Blair. I bet this was done because Labour were acutely aware of their past treason, as well as the treason they intended to commit in the future.

  159. sdfc

    Bruce

    Well if you accept that CO2 plays a role in heating the planet then you were obviously not the target of my comment.

    There are plenty of sources for and against. I’m agnostic through ignorance. But I do remember high school science and that CO2 is a gas that contributes to the heating of the planet. Some here seem to deny it.

    I looked at the link by the way. The paper attached doesn’t seem to contain that quote.

    Climate is a chaotic system is it not? Where did you come up with those numbers?

  160. Tom

    sdfc
    #1157011, posted on January 18, 2014 at 7:50 pm

    sdfc, my point stands: you trust the climate models propaganda because, like a starry-eyed 12-year-old girl, you accept the climate models propaganda, which was invented by people with a massive conflict of interest — in fact, a financial life-and-death reliance on their veracity.

  161. sdfc

    So CO2 is a greenhouse gas is propaganda?

  162. Tom

    “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” is science, sdfc. The idea that CO2 is the primary driver of global atmospheric temperature is infantile, uncorroborated propaganda. “What else could it be?” is not a sufficient standard of proof.

  163. sdfc

    Tom

    “CO2 is a greenhouse gas” is science, sdfc.

    So you agree with me yet you insult me. Odd behaviour.

  164. Tom

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but there is zero empirical evidence that it is the primary driver of global atmospheric temperate, according to the IPCC’s teenage Marxist political fantasy, sdfc.

  165. sdfc

    Tom

    I’m not a climate expert so I don’t pretend to know. I doubt you are either judging by this performance.

  166. Tom

    I’m happy to see the evidence, sdfc. I am not willing to accept per se the authority of experts who, on a lifetime of examining people’s evidence to see whether they are bullshit artists, are bullshit artists.

    Our brains work differently. I have a brother like you, who I love to bits. It was agony during last year’s election.

  167. sdfc

    Like I said earlier Tom I’m agnostic because I simply don’t have the expertise to know. What I find amusing is that some people on this blog, who seem to know even less than me, are climate experts.

  168. Bruce

    I looked at the link by the way. The paper attached doesn’t seem to contain that quote.

    Sorry I’m going to have to ask you which link and which quote? Not sure which you mean.

    The 0.6/C ECS in SB2010 is derived by dividing 3.7 Wm^2 by 6 Wm^2K^-1 thereby giving you 0.6 K/doubling. Spencer was not allowed to do that calculation in his paper because the reviewers wouldn’t let him publish with it in. But the calc is quite simple. I can give you a reference if you want.

    The paper BJ1996 Fig 7 (which is mentioned under my first graph) shows that the solar dynamo imputes warming or cooling on the Earth by a then unknown mechanism (for which we now have partial explanations). It shows that the temperature rise from 1906 to 2005 due to the Sun is about 1.1 C at the latitude of Armagh. Or about 0.33 C globally (Rao 2011) since high latitudes have an enhanced response.

    (BTW, the SB2010 link may not work as Spencer’s blog was down just now. He gets attacked regularly. I couldn’t find an alternative site holding the paper.)

    I’m agnostic through ignorance.

    I’m a working scientist (chemistry) so I decided I needed to look at the detail before commenting. That was back in about 2006 when I was thinking of doing something in the field (save the world and all that). I don’t claim argumentum ab auctoritate, rather I will be glad to assist anyone who wants to look at the underlying science. Some things I’m not so good at like the radiative side, where I defer to guys like Cohenite.

  169. JC

    You need to explain why you reckon simple rate cuts weren’t suffice to bring about a recovery as they have in every other downturn over the last 80 years.

    Because we never had the level of leverage in the system to the extent we did with a Fed tightening way too much, which was then too slow to figure out just how quickly the economy was tanking.

  170. Tom

    I’m no climate expert, sdfc. I edited my first scientific magazine about 30 years ago. I insist that everything I don’t understand is explained to me. I’m quite intelligent. I won’t be treated like an idiot.

  171. JC

    I won’t be treated like an idiot.

    Monster doesn’t mind.

  172. egg_

    Like I said earlier Tom I’m agnostic because I simply don’t have the expertise to know. What I find amusing is that some people on this blog, who seem to know even less than me, are climate experts.

    ‘The Hole in the Ozone Layer’ – natural or man made?

  173. JC

    SDFC

    Of course Co2 is a greenhouse gas. The problem is that the climate models are fucked. They’re simply wrong and no amount of denial can change that. Nothing. Nada.

    The sensitivity they were applying in the models is just wrong and Richard Lindzen appears to be more correct with each passing day. Lindzen’s prediction is around 1 deg warmer in 100 years. Big deal. In fact big fucking deal. The world would be much better off with 1 degree of warming anyways. So we’re jerking around with taxes and shit for a climate event that likely offer benefits to humanity.

  174. Bruce

    ‘The Hole in the Ozone Layer’ – natural or man made?

    Both. The chemistry is very elegant egg. I’ve done work with the chemistry of radicals (admittedly NOx not Cl) and the stuff is mesmerisingly gorgeous if you are a chemist like me. Paralysingly boring for anyone else, but each person gets their kicks the way they like.

    However I don’t think the hole is necessarily bad. Harm risk is a different argument, which the ozone mafia never bother to argue.

  175. JC

    @SeditionaryI
    #1156943, posted on January 18, 2014 at 6:53 pm

    “I’m heartbroken”

    Do you require the services of a whaaambulance? hahaha

    what I do want is for you to fuck off and never come back. Are you able to offer that, Sed you imbecile.

  176. jupes

    Sdfc you don’t need to be a climate scientist to understand when you are being lied to.

    It is a fundamental part of science to make predictions. Look at every predictions these climate idiots have made. None have been correct.

    Open your eyes.

  177. Watching It Unfold

    Probably no one will read this but……lets pull out of the UN – its for the best.

  178. Leo G

    Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

    There is no consistent definition of a greenhouse gas in thermodynamics.

  179. Oh come on

    <blockquoteDo you require the services of a whaaambulance? hahaha

    Oh, well played! I’d pinch that myself except it’s so hackneyed it creaks. Although Sed thinks it’s the height of wit, evidently.

  180. KevFromCanberra

    You know the alarmists are running scared when Obama gets his chief global warming scientist to trot this sort of bilge out:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qARQmvSNjfs

Comments are closed.