Western Antarctic ice sheet collapse has already begun, scientists warn

[EternalOptimist]

pj always seems so 'breathless' to me.

as if he has just rushed in to deliver the latest bad news. The first kid on the block with the bad news

He will be SO disappointed if millions of people dont die due to global warming. I have this awful mental image of him squeezing his little todger when he reads about the latest dire apocalypse and wondering how he can worm it in to a casual conversation about.. well..anything really

[DodgyAgent]

pj always seems so 'breathless' to me.

as if he has just rushed in to deliver the latest bad news. The first kid on the block with the bad news

He will be SO disappointed if millions of people dont die due to global warming. I have this awful mental image of him squeezing his little todger when he reads about the latest dire apocalypse and wondering how he can worm it in to a casual conversation about.. well..anything really

He is part of the left wing anti human element of society. These are the curtain twitchers who do not want to see others enjoying life, enjoying making money, enjoying independence etc. Religion no longer holds the power to control people and the moral argument over taxation has been lost. All that is left to manipulate the human conscience is Green ideology with its anti human ethics embodied by damnation of anything to do with fossil fuel and the freedoms it gives us.

[doodab]

He is part of the left wing anti human element of society. These are the curtain twitchers who do not want to see others enjoying life, enjoying making money, enjoying independence etc. Religion no longer holds the power to control people and the moral argument over taxation has been lost. All that is left to manipulate the human conscience is Green ideology with its anti human ethics embodied by damnation of anything to do with fossil fuel and the freedoms it gives us.

And what is this if not the same "smearing" you rush to condemn in everyone else? You are a class A hypocrite. And that's a fact, not a smear.

[DodgyAgent]

And what is this if not the same "smearing" you rush to condemn in everyone else? You are a class A hypocrite. And that's a fact, not a smear.

I am making a point about the psychology behind the views in order to explain why his position on new technology is at odds with his "caring about climate change" position. This is different from people like you who avoid arguing points and instead smear the person/persons who make them. I presume a smear in your tiny little one dimensional brain is anything you disagree with.

[doodab]

I am making a point about the psychology behind the views in order to explain why his position on new technology is at odds with his "caring about climate change" position.

No you aren't. You invent a strawman "left wing anti human element of society" and characterized as "curtain twitchers who do not want to see others enjoying life, enjoying making money, enjoying independence". That's not explaining psychology it's chucking mud pure and simple.

[B]This is different from people like you who avoid arguing points and instead smear the person/persons who make them.

You contradict yourself. Just the other day you complemented me on a point well argued.

I presume a smear in your tiny little one dimensional brain is anything you disagree with.

That's a bit rich considering your default response to anyone disagreeing with you is to avoid actually arguing the point and reach straight for the cliches. Your awfully quick to accuse others of smearing, the politics of envy, leftism or whatever other irrelevant label you think you can use to characterize their opinions as flawed without actually considering what they actually said. You invariably go on to make up some guff about how whatever label you've attached happens to "not want to see others enjoying life, enjoying making money, enjoying independence" regardless of whether such an opinion can be credited to your opponent or not.

Like I said, your a class A hypocrite.

[pjclarke]

I did try to find the science behind 'Nualgi'in the form of peer-reviewed research or trials, but on their website and patent application they only point to an Encyclopaedia article from 13 years ago, which seems to come up with much the same numbers as the many papers that conclude it is not a viable large scale solution.

Yes, iron (Fe) is not the only micro-nutrient deficient, but it is the primary one which is presumably why on their website the Nualgi nanobiotech quote the efficiency in terms of Fe added only ...

Attention is drawn to the article on Iron fertilization by Mr. C.H.Coale, of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, California, USA in the Encyclopedia of ocean sciences edited by John H Steele © Academic Press, wherein a schematic representation of the 'iron theory' suggests that iron requirement for carbon removal varies from 1-2 µ mol Fe/mol C to 15 µ mol Fe/mol C.

and why in the patent application Fe is used in a max proportion of 50%, all the other micronutrients combined a maximum of 30%.

But let us suppose that Nualgi is indeed the Micacle-Gro of the oceans and is 100% more effective than Fe alone, there still is not enough ocean available to have an effect worth the investment, compared to other less speculative technologies. Not to say it should not be researched, just that it is at the moment a long way from being 'a solution to the problem'

I ignore the ad hom stuff, largely. A paper was linked, described as from a body that 'simply studied and reported on experiments without it seems any sort of political agenda' and it turned that, if one takes the trouble to read the whole thing, it supports my position, then the ad homs started.....

Fascinating.

[DodgyAgent]

I did try to find the science behind 'Nualgi'in the form of peer-reviewed research or trials, but on their website and patent application they only point to an Encyclopaedia article from 13 years ago, which seems to come up with much the same numbers as the many papers that conclude it is not a viable large scale solution.

Yes, iron (Fe) is not the only micro-nutrient deficient, but it is the primary one which is presumably why on their website the Nualgi nanobiotech quote the efficiency in terms of Fe added only ...



and why in the patent application Fe is used in a max proportion of 50%, all the other micronutrients combined a maximum of 30%.

But let us suppose that Nualgi is indeed the Micacle-Gro of the oceans and is 100% more effective than Fe alone, there still is not enough ocean available to have an effect worth the investment, compared to other less speculative technologies. Not to say it should not be researched, just that it is at the moment a long way from being 'a solution to the problem'

I ignore the ad hom stuff, largely. A paper was linked, described as from a body that 'simply studied and reported on experiments without it seems any sort of political agenda' and it turned that, if one takes the trouble top read the whole thing, it supports my position, then the ad homs started.....

Fascinating.

Classifying a point as an "ad hom" argument does not invalidate it. My point still stands that you are not interested in solutions to AGW, you are more interested in the power of "owning the problem" than solving it.

As for the impracticalities as I said it has been calculated that only 1.72% of the Ocean would need to be fertilised to counter the release of CO2 caused by fossil fuels:

Nualgi required to absorb this - 5,878,571 tons per annum
@ 1400 kgs of CO2 for 1 kg of Nualgi
Nualgi required to absorb this 113,049 ton / week

Area
Ocean area in which Nualgi is to be used 4,576,901 sq kms
@ 25 kg of Nualgi in 1 Sq Km of Ocean.

Gross Ocean area 361,000,000 sq kms
% of Ocean to be fertilized with Nualgi 1.27%

[BlasterBates]

An example of how environmentalists mislead using "pseudo science"

The article shows a dramatic picture of a disappearing glacier "ooh how scary".

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/sc...f=science&_r=0

really?, note how you could have written a similar scary article about a disappearing glacier in 1845 or 1865....



Basically the climate is changing always has. Check out newspapers in the 18th and 19th centuries for horrible storms, floods and droughts.

[DodgyAgent]

. You invariably go on to make up some guff about how whatever label you've attached happens to "not want to see others enjoying life, enjoying making money, enjoying independence" regardless of whether such an opinion can be credited to your opponent or not.
.

An english word for the "desire to control others"

We (the liberty minded) must take the conversation away from statists that libertarians are selfish and turn it toward the very real fact that most statists are driven by fear, envy and centrally the desire to control others through force.

...I was thinking about the power of language itself on culture and about the visceral impact of concepts when they are boiled down to single words such as : greed, selfishness, lust and envy etc.
And I realized.. I can't think of a good english word that exists for the 'desire to control others'.

The word "controlling" used in context of describing someones personality; implies this but only when used in context and the word clearly doesn't have quite a sharpness to it like "racist" or "greed".

What if we create this word (or find one. What is it??) and build into it a negative connotation (as it deserves).
Wouldn't this be helpful in framing conversations with statists?

Is it not a central topic of all human liberty to oppose the idea that it's OK/good to control everyone else.. and we don't even have a word for the idea/concept that we are against?

In a way, the relatively new word "statist" (coined by libertarians in the 1940s) has accomplished some of what I'm talking about..
But "statist" really just implies someone who believes in the virtue of the state and the average person does not automatically connect it to the desire to control others.



have you got any words for it?

here is another one

Envy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[doodab]

An english word for the "desire to control others"

We (the liberty minded) must take the conversation away from statists that libertarians are selfish and turn it toward the very real fact that most statists are driven by fear, envy and centrally the desire to control others through force.

...I was thinking about the power of language itself on culture and about the visceral impact of concepts when they are boiled down to single words such as : greed, selfishness, lust and envy etc.
And I realized.. I can't think of a good english word that exists for the 'desire to control others'.

The word "controlling" used in context of describing someones personality; implies this but only when used in context and the word clearly doesn't have quite a sharpness to it like "racist" or "greed".

What if we create this word (or find one. What is it??) and build into it a negative connotation (as it deserves).
Wouldn't this be helpful in framing conversations with statists?

Is it not a central topic of all human liberty to oppose the idea that it's OK/good to control everyone else.. and we don't even have a word for the idea/concept that we are against?

In a way, the relatively new word "statist" (coined by libertarians in the 1940s) has accomplished some of what I'm talking about..
But "statist" really just implies someone who believes in the virtue of the state and the average person does not automatically connect it to the desire to control others.



have you got any words for it?

here is another one

Envy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As usual you're missing the point. The motives of your opponents are irrelevant, as are yours. It just doesn't follow that you are right because your opponent is doing something for the wrong reasons. They may well be right in spite of that. Someone like me (who is actually fairly neutral on the AGW thing) sees this argument, or any other, sees the way you argue, and simply dismisses what you are saying because the mode of argument you are employing is spurious.