>Ok, we've had that topic before and we disagree on quite a few points
>there.
So long as it isn't the source of the CO2 rise, I'm actually fine that you disagree and just leaving it there. (But if it is on that matter, I know enough now to speak with some modest authority and can walk you through almost any detail you'd care to question -- so long as you are, of course, willing to work for it, too.)
If I may ask, what's your comment on the story below?
>
>
formatting link
>
>To me that's tantamount to thumbing their noses at the whole world. That
>really took the cake.
I need you to point me to something specific in that article. I didn't read the entire thing, just skimmed the lead.
Basically, what I saw is that top leaders from all over the world are busy doing what they do best -- hauling entourages with them and spending (wasting) lots of resources and money along the way. If that's your problem all I can say is that I'd love for world leaders to duke it out with each other in a small, cheap hotel room and eat cheap crackers and cheese until they are done getting sick of each other. But what else is new?
I may have missed what you wanted to direct me towards, though.
I don't know what to say. It's none of any particular climate scientist's fault that Obama needs security and fancy cars and expensive dining arrangements. Same for the other 59 prime ministers and presidents attending there. One could wish, but as you know if wishes were horses beggars would ride.
The fact that leaders going there are excessive says nothing about the science. And I know you know that's true.
formatting link
It's the standard fare when you get the pinnacle of the elite from wealthy countries and opulence from poorer countries attending some get-together. So it tells you nothing at all about climate science results. Instead, just something about wealth, power, and opulence.
Yeah. I'd like them to come by foot or bicycle or row boat and set an example of the suffering they will ask others for and never actually feel themselves. But ... what's a mother to do, Jörg? It's the world we live in.
That article you pointed at didn't appear to do that job for you. Yet you certainly appear to have had a gut reaction towards scientists when they weren't specifically discussed. When I merely glanced over the article I saw a different picture than you seem to have. We read the same thing. But I read the literal text and didn't insert into it other things not written there. This makes a great segue into some recent research in psychology and neurology, which I'll comment on at the end.
This is a 'fairness' response and I understand and sympathize. But scientists aren't in control here and cannot be held responsible. This is politics and elite power in play.
Way, way beyond their pay grade.
formatting link
As I said, scientists have no control over what world leaders spend their money on so this is a misplaced emotion, if you blame scientists.
My brother lives in LA and we regularly talk about this. He sounds about like you do. It arrives from strong, true personal stories that carry important and hard to ignore messages of the lack of fairness in life and perhaps also a sense of lack of power or control over ones' own life, at times.
But again, this has nothing to do with climate science fact.
There is no way that the fact that California has political and financial problems and disagreements has anything to do with climate science fact or normalized basis (mode) functions as descriptions of Maxwell field configurations, for that matter. They are completely separable, if you have a mind that allows you to isolate your gut reactions from the cold deduction of theory to physics.
I remember a line from Galileo (translated, obviously) written to Sarsi in The Assayer, which went like: "In that way you will be able to find out just how much force human authority has upon the facts of Nature, which remains deaf and inexorable to our wishes." Physics cares not the least whit for human wish or hope or emotion.
We, as humans, need to get a grip on that very real truth, Jörg. Yes, there are some truly evil rats in the world and, yes, a far too small group of elite _do_ control most of the resources in the world. Our very system of democratic involvement is deeply flawed and, at the best of times, seems to work barely at all for us as caring humans. Those fundamental unfairnesses simply exist and we are justified to be angered when anyone tries to once again apply power and control for yet another supposed reason, which you and I know at the outset will be abused terribly for the purposes of power and elite control. There is NO escaping that fact. It is the simple truth of the world we live in. But nature doesn't care, either. It knows none of this, cares not the least bit one way or another for it. And it will do what it does no matter how angry we get at other humans, how unfair our situations may get, or anything else we humans often feel regarding the lack of fairness and justice in the world.
Nature simply _is_. You fall off a cliff exactly the same whether or not you have a 100 family members crying desperately for your safety or none, at all. The facts of nature are deaf and inexorable to our wishes. That's reality.
That is what we need to get a grip on, no matter how ugly and despicable the intent of those in power will abuse and use us.
I think it will be the end of us, Jörg. Because to be honest, I agree with you. Our fine-tuned ability to detect situations of unfairness and injustice and our profound and almost uncontrollable reactions to it are deeply genetic. They show up in many mammals, not just humans. If my neighbor were to come onto my property and kill one of my children without cause I can understand, there is no limit to which I wouldn't go to "find justice." I know that. I feel it. And I wouldn't care if it meant my own death achieving it.
This is part of why we have justice systems -- to offer (and even require) us to participate in something that promises some measure of justice without the over-the-top escallation that can result without it.
However, I know that in the end we humans collectively will be willing to push each other and our own very lives themselves over the brink of death in the pursuit of finding justice against those who transgress us. In the case of climate science, power and elite will definitely _use_ this climate science fact to further their own ends. This is why I earlier wrote that any carbon tax would need to be sent straight back to you and me.. the public. Because otherwise power and elite will simply use the ill-gotten gains for their own purposes and you and I know it, too. And we will feel transgressed, as a result. And that anger will affect our decision-making.
We are indeed powerless against the powerful. And they will use all directions, whether against or for climate related laws, against you and me in any way they can to further their own desires. Or for us, when it serves them. The point is, it's always about what they want. Because pieces of paper make them able to exercise power. So they do.
But none of that changes the physics.
Since I have the deepest respect for our sense of fairness and justice and since I also know that the elite will use us against others of us no matter which direction we head, I have very little hope in the end that logic and rational thought will lead us towards accepting more of the yoke that the elite will love to place around our necks and that we will, collectively, prefer death.
And we will ultimately get it. Because of our profound sense of injustice. It even gets parents to let their own children wear explosive backpacks and commit suicide. That is the strength and depth of that emotion on our actions. So I've little doubt where this will lead us.
I can hope for rationality or that those in power will decide that it is in _their_ interests. But that's all.
Jon
P.S. There is a possible theory about why you and I can see the same things and read them differently. Or why some people infer things that aren't present. For example, when a boy hands a flower arrangement to a girl mirror neurons will yield a very low level, gut response that takes place much faster [this has been measured and the neurons specifically involved also located] than it is possible for conscious analysis to take place. In some people. Not all. This measurable response affects cognition and can actually impact conscious impressions in unnoticed, visceral ways, where that does not take place in others, at all. If curious, read about mirror neurons. This theory is revolutionizing the entire field of neurology and psychology and I think it may apply. But I'll leave it there for you to research on your own. It's a very interesting subject on its own right.
Which means nothing that you don't know if some did, or didn't. Maybe some did? But just not publicly. I'm not saying. I don't know. Just you don't, either. Of course, whether some did or didn't really isn't the issue. Fact is, they can't control any of this. And you know it. And they know it. Besides, there is a much larger issue in the minds of climate scientists... just getting job-one done. Getting sadly mired into the quick-sand of whether or not you can force some of the elite to stop using limos would be complete death -- it would totally suck the oxygen out of any _material_ discussions that need to take place.
First things first, priorities where they need to be. Etc. I think you are focused far too much on something that can ONLY result in bickering and a complete and total loss of the important points ahead. It would be like going to a corporate board meeting and demanding that a discussion about the bad tasting coffee in the urns become the first topic of the day. Pure silliness, even if a real problem there.
I think you are basically saying that public opinion is important. I'm not going to give you a lick of argument, there. It simply is.
formatting link
What does THAT have to do with climate science fact? Nothing, at all.
It seems too easy to distract you with examples and lets you respond to that instead of the point ahead. The point, if you missed it, is that climate scientists have no control over what world leaders spend their money on. The above response changes nothing I said here.
First off, it won't work. Not because of technical reasons, but because the politics of power won't let a well-fashioned design pass into law. So it will never happen. There is too much money on the table -- way, way too much money. We're talking about amounts that exceed the gross revenues of most countries. So elite and power will "get ahead" of anything and make sure it turns their way. That's life in the big city. And there is no possible escape with today's systems in operation. It would take a profound revolution and even then that would only last for a short while until a mixture of new and old elite find new ways to get out in front of that, too. It is the same story for six thousand years of human civilization and it is not going to change, tomorrow.
But to get to your question, I'd probably expect a process that identifies the principal sources of carbon dioxide emissions (we are talking 'carbon' tax, so I suppose that excludes other greenhouse gases that don't primarily yield CO2 but are strong greenhouse gases of their own right -- such as SF6) like oil and coal and taxes it. Probably, it would be impossible to bear the brunt all at once so I'm pretty sure the tax would graduate over time on some schedule, hopefully one that is determined by the combined efforts of those better informed about consequences and mitigation options and better able to provide reasoned balancing of risks and costs. That's the source side of the equation -- the tax. On the other end, the taxes collected would have to go straight back to us as cash dividends. How that gets divied up (do you do a head count and simply divide and pay? or do people keep track of their carbon-related expenses and have to file paperwork? or...) is important to me but I'm not sure what system would be devised that is simple enough to understand and manage, yet relatively immune to excessive abuse (some abuse will always occur -- the issue is to manage that into a small problem.)
I'm open to your ideas here.
But the problem is that there is NO WAY power and elite will support anything like this. If it goes back to us, that means they don't get to use it to shore up their own stupid mistakes or otherwise add to their own exertion of power and game-playing amongst themselves and other power centers in the world. So it will never, ever pass that way. Even if you and I could agree about the tax and about the fairness of the divident distribution.
So I'm under no illusions that it will happen in time. It won't.
Bingo. You and I have had our belly full of it.
I really like your approach. Education and voluntary action is the very best way. But you forget something. Go read:
Hardin, G., 1968, Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
Hardin, G., 1998, "Extensions of 'The Tragedy of the Commons'", Science, 280 (5364): 682?683.
If you want copies, I'll send them.
Your approach won't work, much as I do love it.
Jon
It's a VERY interesting break-away research area and it explains a great deal. Those studying the human mind are having a damnable field day over this. I was at a conference back in 2006 where this was the breaking news of the day and these people were almost giddy and skipping into the meetings with unvarnished glee. It put so much into theoretical context. You may find it fun, at least. I read about it because it is important to my own education on autism.
That was _before_ the advent of "free energy" that we could pump out of the ground and transport/distribute en-masse. When people _had_ to work in communities to survive. Today, many if not most in the US live in _profound_ isolation, buy lawn mowers for each of us when only a few would be sufficient for a neighborhood and only a few would have been purchased "back in the day" (had they existed then, when communities worked like they did.) We don't share with each other, don't cooperate like we once did. We need to, but there it is. Instead, we buy two cars when really we only need one or three cars when two are needed because of the need for a backup. If we were in a community, the number of such expensive assets would be greatly reduced. But we consume, consume, consume, because that's how our life has changed here. Unique in human history, really.
I would _love_ to see a recapture of communities, again, where people know their neighbors and put shoulder to shoulder and don't consume excessively, where less would do more than adequately for a group.
Problem is, people no longer understand that and no longer believe in it. That needs to change. And people need to change their lifestyles.
But yes, if we could roll back this 'learned behavior' and recapture the benefits (and yes, problems too) of community life we'd be a lot better off on balance.
But most people are used to, now, the profound isolation that occurs when we close our home door. No one knows what goes on inside, then. We live in profound isolation and have grown to know about nothing else.
Well, Jörg, I think you and I would find each other excellent to be around and I think we'd appreciate and be able to embrace living a somewhat more community-minded and less-isolated life in community with others and find healthy ways to share resources together without much controversy between us. And what there was, I'm sure we'd compromise without recriminations or regret and find the community sharing worth far more than the minor costs.
But this is not going to happen easily. Not in the US. Too many generations have gone by, too much mental adaptation, too much forgotten. It will take hard work and profound difficulties to get people regaining what was lost.
And yes, if all this were to happen I think we'd be a LOT better off and very likely would be able to significant things to mitigate climate change -- for a while. Population growth would still win out in the end, though. We don't know how to do that and, I suspect, never will learn.. in time.
In the end, really no different in the final analysis than bacteria in a petri dish.
The only city that came close to getting this right was Irvine. They are a purely master-planned city, so each section of the city, as it developed, was called a 'village.' Each village had its own commercial retail center, as well as the usual parks, schools, recreation, etc. All they really needed to make it work well would have been a light rail down the center to connect these villages with the jobs, and a series of roads for NEVs, and it would have been nearly perfect... except for the taxes and crowding!
The light rail was shouted down by the NIMBY's, who screamed bloody murder when the time came to put in the system. it was on the plan, but they just assumed that all those dotted lines on the maps would never actually happen, and when it started to, they raised the ruckus. "Why, that train would bring in who knows what kind of rif-raff to infest our streets and stores!"
Don't I get any? I'm a VERY GOOD shot ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Help save the environment!
Please dispose of socialism properly!
The Republicans have been saying this for many months, but it falls on deaf democrat ears:
A _firm_ cap on malpractice awards.
Interstate competition between insurance companies.
If the medical insurance companies were regulated the same way the auto insurance companies are, the TV would be saturated with "we're cheaper!" ads, like it's now saturated by auto insurance "we're cheaper!" ads.
The only thing I know to do to avoid "preexisting conditions" is to stay healthy in the first place. If you're talking about fetuses that are born sick, there are private charities for them (March of Dimes, Salvation Army, Red Cross, Churches, etc.) that are supported by VOLUNTARY donations.
Stop taxing us into slavery. People are surprisingly generous, when they're allowed to keep their own earnigs rather than having them confiscated to pay other people's bills.
Actually... I have to INSIST! I want to give Slowman a SLOW BLEED... I know exactly where to place the shot ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Help save the environment!
Please dispose of socialism properly!
Give Obama a chance, he'll figure a way :-( ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Is Obama "The Manchurian Candidate", trained and planted by Osama?
I'm not "granddaddy", I'm "Opa", otherwise known as the "head of the family" ;-) ...Jim Thompson
-- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at
formatting link
| 1962 | Help save the environment! Please dispose of socialism properly!
But, to me, the "head of the family" means the Don ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Help save the environment!
Please dispose of socialism properly!
Our middle of the road Tribune went under, so I was reconsidering subscribing to The Arizona Repulsive, just to keeps tabs on the nutcases.
So I went to their website and read a few articles.
There's a limit to what nonsense I will pay for.
I guess I'll just have to get my "print" news from the BBC ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Help save the environment!
Please dispose of socialism properly!
Part of the problem in USA is the high cost of public works projects near and especially in longer-established major cities, where the building trades unions are powerful. Their labor is expensive. They are "country clubs" according to my actually-leftwing mother to extent that prospective new members need to be voted in. Several years ago there was a little scandal in Philadelphia when it was exposed that graduates of Philadelphia's public high schools (I forget whether overall or for black graduates of Philly public high schools) had a higher rate of getting into Harvard U. than into Philly's building trade unions. I suspect that may be true only for the ones for the "skilled trades", meaning all of the building trades unions in Philadelphia except the one for "laborers", since that one stands out as having significant black membership.
I live in a home small enough to be easier to rent than to own, so I am a bit mobile and live about 4 miles from my "day job". Easier to do with no children...
I have a "side job" of doing engineering from my home as a "telecommuter".
I live within biking range of my day job.
My mother lives only a few miles from her job, but I don't see her doing that commute by bike even though I can. She owns a home in a neighborhood she likes, and managed to have her job nearby lately. Farthest she had to go to work before from there was 1-1.5 mile drive to train station and ride a train roughly 10 miles or so into Center City Philadelphia and walk 2.3-3 blocks IIRC.
My father was self-employed or owned a small company most of the past 35 years, having office at most something like 3 miles from his home, at times mere blocks from his home, at times in his home.
The older of my two younger brothers commutes by car something like 13 miles each way. The younger of my two siblings has a car, and for commuting to work or to classes has done so mostly 4 miles or less, but has done some for jobs more like 20-25 miles away. In more favorable weather, he sometimes does the shorter commutes by bike.
However, I do hear how it is harder to affordably live close to work in many areas, especially in terms of line of work. I do sense that working as an engineer as an employee of a company owned by other(s) is a job with above-average risk for longer commute to the job from a house worth having a family in and having a grassy land for the kids to play on, in a desirable neighborhood, and affordable to extent of not needing to be at least around halfway a millionaire in 2009 dollars to "own it clear".
===========================================
What I want: I bicycle from around Sydney, Australia or Buenos Aires, Argentina or from South Africa.
Bicycles made north of 15 degrees north latitude have heating that works well from last week of May through first week or two of September, and air conditioning that works well from October through the first week or two of May. Bicycles from south of the Tropic of Capricorn mostly have air conditioning working from mid-late May through early-mid September, and heat working from late October through early or mid April. :) :) :)
I know about 19 Canadians fairly to extremely well due to my clients in my engineering "side job" being disproportionately Canadian.
Absolutely 100% of the Canadians I know that well, including 2 company owners and one of them notably a right-winger at least as far as Canada goes, a retired police detective, wives and children, and some company employees down to front desk receptionist and a contract engineer, would refuse to trade their health plan for what they get "on my side of the lake" (Lake Ontario).
The most-outspokenly-rightwing of these Canucks I know still says that stuff along the lines of waiting 6 months for an MRI is newsworthy exception rather than rule.
That one tells me that most of the newsworthy delays are when patient demands to have a particular specific MD for a specialist.
That touches a nerve of mine...
One story I heard (a few years old already, but I consider still-relevant):
Some hospital in Denver had a "star brain surgeon" ("my words" along with IIRC), who wanted the hospital where he did brain surgery at to get a shining-rising-star tool known as a "gamma knife".
The "gamma knives" alreading existing in USA were roughly megabuck high-tech devices, plus cost of floor space for them at hospital floor space cost and overhead at hospital cost rate. It appears to me that a "gamma knife" is a multimegabuck big-ticket tool. (IIRC)
What I read then was that the ones already existing were only on average being 40%-utilized. So the hospital in Denver or wherever finds it more cost-effective to fly/hotel/whatknot their patients to Chicago where there is a "gamma knife" than to acquire a "gamma knife".
However, IIRC "in my words" the "star brain surgeon" at the hospital in Denver or wherever that was threatened to move to somewhere that had a "gamma knife" if the hospital where he practiced did not get one of their own.
And I hear radio ads for specific hospitals bragging about how/where they have "star doctors" (my words, not theirs), along with radio ads by one saying how they "in my words" "are so-high-tech and latest", including recent ones where I sense they are "bragging about having a gamma knife".
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.