Carlo M. Cipolla (15 August 1922 – 5 September 2000) was an Italian
economic historian. He was a member of both the American Academy of Arts
and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society

These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
=================================

° Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid
individuals in circulation.

° The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is
independent of any other characteristic of that person.

° A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or
to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly
incurring losses.

° Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid
individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at
all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or
associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

° A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager.

As is evident from the third law, Cipolla identifies two factors to
consider when exploring human behavior:

° Benefits and losses that individuals cause to themselves.
° Benefits and losses that individuals cause to others.

Cipolla further refines his definition of "bandits" and "naïve people"
by noting that members of these groups can either add to or detract from
the general welfare, depending on the relative gains (or losses) that
they cause themselves and society. A bandit may enrich himself more or
less than he impoverishes society, and a naïve person may enrich society
more or less than he impoverishes himself and/or allows himself to be
impoverished."

Never engage a fool in conversation, as he is doing the same.
He or she of course in today's world.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ua7r6l$37qog$1@dont-email.me...
> Carlo M. Cipolla (15 August 1922 - 5 September 2000) was an Italian
> economic historian. He was a member of both the American Academy of Arts
> and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society
>
> These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
> =================================
>
> � Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid
> individuals in circulation.
>
> � The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is
> independent of any other characteristic of that person.
>
> � A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or
> to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly
> incurring losses.
>
> � Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid
> individuals. In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at
> all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or
> associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
>
> � A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.
>
> Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager.
>
> As is evident from the third law, Cipolla identifies two factors to
> consider when exploring human behavior:
>
> � Benefits and losses that individuals cause to themselves.
> � Benefits and losses that individuals cause to others.
>
> Cipolla further refines his definition of "bandits" and "na�ve people"
> by noting that members of these groups can either add to or detract from
> the general welfare, depending on the relative gains (or losses) that
> they cause themselves and society. A bandit may enrich himself more or
> less than he impoverishes society, and a na�ve person may enrich society
> more or less than he impoverishes himself and/or allows himself to be
> impoverished."
>

On 31/07/2023 09:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Carlo M. Cipolla (15 August 1922 – 5 September 2000) was an Italian
> economic historian. He was a member of both the American Academy of Arts
> and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society
>
> These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:

Don't forget Hanlon's Razor:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

--

Jeff

On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 09:18:27 +0100
Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 31/07/2023 09:25, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > Carlo M. Cipolla (15 August 1922 – 5 September 2000) was an Italian
> > economic historian. He was a member of both the American Academy of
> > Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society
> >
> > These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
>
> Don't forget Hanlon's Razor:
> "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by
> stupidity."
>

But that is reversed in the case of governments.

--
Joe

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:25:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Carlo M. Cipolla (15 August 1922 – 5 September 2000) was an Italian
>economic historian. He was a member of both the American Academy of Arts
>and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society
>
>These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
>=================================
>
> ° Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid
>individuals in circulation.

For example, those who voted to leave the EU.

> ° The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is
>independent of any other characteristic of that person.
>
>° A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or
>to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly
>incurring losses.

For example, a person who voted to leave the EU.

>
> ° Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid
>individuals.

For example, those who voted to leave the EU.

> In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at
>all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or
>associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
>
>° A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

For example, a person who voted to leave the EU.

>
>Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager.
>
>As is evident from the third law, Cipolla identifies two factors to
>consider when exploring human behavior:
>
>° Benefits and losses that individuals cause to themselves.
>° Benefits and losses that individuals cause to others.
>
>Cipolla further refines his definition of "bandits" and "naïve people"
>by noting that members of these groups can either add to or detract from
>the general welfare, depending on the relative gains (or losses) that
>they cause themselves and society. A bandit may enrich himself more or
>less than he impoverishes society, and a naïve person may enrich society
>more or less than he impoverishes himself and/or allows himself to be
>impoverished."

On 2.8.23 11:48 am, Pomegranate Bastard wrote:

> For example, those who voted to leave the EU.
> For example, a person who voted to leave the EU.
> For example, those who voted to leave the EU.
> For example, a person who voted to leave the EU.

Definition: Fanatic - a person who can't change their mind, and won't
change the subject.

--
Tetbury, Gloucestershire , UK

Licentiae, quam stulti libertatem vocabant - Tacitus

On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:25:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Carlo M. Cipolla (15 August 1922 – 5 September 2000) was an Italian
>economic historian. He was a member of both the American Academy of Arts
>and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society
>
>These are Cipolla's five fundamental laws of stupidity:
>=================================
>
> ° Always and inevitably, everyone underestimates the number of stupid
>individuals in circulation.

For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.

>
> ° The probability that a certain person (will) be stupid is
>independent of any other characteristic of that person.
>
>° A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or
>to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly
>incurring losses.

For example, a person who refuses to accept the reality of AGW.

>
> ° Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid
>individuals.

For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.

> In particular, non-stupid people constantly forget that at
>all times and places, and under any circumstances, to deal and/or
>associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.
>
>° A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person.

For example, a person who refuses to accept the reality of AGW.

>
>Corollary: a stupid person is more dangerous than a pillager.
>
>As is evident from the third law, Cipolla identifies two factors to
>consider when exploring human behavior:
>
>° Benefits and losses that individuals cause to themselves.
>° Benefits and losses that individuals cause to others.
>
>Cipolla further refines his definition of "bandits" and "naïve people"
>by noting that members of these groups can either add to or detract from
>the general welfare, depending on the relative gains (or losses) that
>they cause themselves and society. A bandit may enrich himself more or
>less than he impoverishes society, and a naïve person may enrich society
>more or less than he impoverishes himself and/or allows himself to be
>impoverished."

On Wednesday, 2 August 2023 at 11:59:30 UTC+1, Bob Henson wrote:
> On 2.8.23 11:48 am, Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
> > For example, those who voted to leave the EU.
> > For example, a person who voted to leave the EU.
> > For example, those who voted to leave the EU.
> > For example, a person who voted to leave the EU.
> Definition: Fanatic - a person who can't change their mind, and won't
> change the subject.

EU delenda est

On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
Pomegranate Bastard wrote:

>For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.

Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent
life are pointing away from Earth?

On 2 Aug 2023 20:07:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:

>On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
>Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>
>>For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>
>Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropogenic_global_warming&redirect=no

On 02/08/2023 21:07, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
> Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>
>> For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>
> Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
>

Autonomous Guided Weapon

--
Colin Bignell

"Pomegranate Bastard" <pommyb@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9j5ncih0rqdcgp4bn6e4v5cr0ltb19g6es@4ax.com...
> On 2 Aug 2023 20:07:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
>>Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>
>>>For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>>
>>Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropogenic_global_warming&redirect=no

How does one distinguish between AGW and GW which would have happened even
without humans? Just because global temperatures have risen in the last
century or so as the population has risen and human-generated emissions have
increased, that doesn't mean that *all* of it is *due* to the human
activities. Some (amount to be debated!) may be due to natural phenomena
over which we have no control.

If turning off lights, driving less, not using coal/wood/gas for heating
buildings etc will reduce (or slow the increase of) temperatures, then I
suppose we need to suffer the reduction in lifestyle. If doing do will not
make a *noticeable* difference because the majority is not affected by
humans, then why should we suffer for no benefit.

My feeling is that we should do as much as we can without suffering because
we can no longer travel as easily, or can't heat our houses as easily or
cheaply - until there is clear consensus as to what proportion of GW is
attributable to things we can control.

On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 13:08:36 UTC+1, NY wrote:
> "Pomegranate Bastard" <pom...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:9j5ncih0rqdcgp4bn...@4ax.com...
> > On 2 Aug 2023 20:07:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8...@4ax.com>
> >>Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
> >>
> >>>For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
> >>
> >>Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropogenic_global_warming&redirect=no
> How does one distinguish between AGW and GW which would have happened even
> without humans? Just because global temperatures have risen in the last
> century or so as the population has risen and human-generated emissions have
> increased, that doesn't mean that *all* of it is *due* to the human
> activities. Some (amount to be debated!) may be due to natural phenomena
> over which we have no control.

True but from most of the data and past records temperatures have increased by a few degees over years
measured in millons rather than hundreds.

I see this rather like some americans see gun control in that the more peolpe that have guns the safer
they'll be a less people will get killed. So teach children how to use guns as early as possible and give them guns then
fewer would get killed.

>
> If turning off lights, driving less, not using coal/wood/gas for heating
> buildings etc will reduce (or slow the increase of) temperatures, then I
> suppose we need to suffer the reduction in lifestyle. If doing do will not
> make a *noticeable* difference because the majority is not affected by
> humans, then why should we suffer for no benefit.

Well I'd agree but I do think the evidence is reasonably clear.
But you'd also have to define suffering.

I hated the hot weather last year, I've yet to suffer due to the rain in the UK or the
fires and deaths in southern Europe and American.
But I might 'suffer' if it affects food prices

>
> My feeling is that we should do as much as we can without suffering because
> we can no longer travel as easily, or can't heat our houses as easily or
> cheaply - until there is clear consensus as to what proportion of GW is
> attributable to things we can control.

I think that has already happened. Otherwise why would they globel temperature
have increased so rapidily over the last 100 years when it previously took millions of years.

On 03/08/2023 in message <kmGdnWC_nvDABVb5nZ2dnZeNn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
Colin Bignell wrote:

>On 02/08/2023 21:07, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
>>Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>
>>>For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>>
>>Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
>>
>
>Autonomous Guided Weapon

BANG!!!

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
You can't tell which way the train went by looking at the tracks

On 03/08/2023 in message <9j5ncih0rqdcgp4bn6e4v5cr0ltb19g6es@4ax.com>
Pomegranate Bastard wrote:

>On 2 Aug 2023 20:07:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
>>Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>
>>>For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>>
>>Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropogenic_global_warming&redirect=no

It is getting warmer because we are still coming out of the last ice age,
in a few thousand years people like you will be whining because it's too
cold.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
The facts, although interesting, are irrelevant

On 3 Aug 2023 13:08:20 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:

>On 03/08/2023 in message <9j5ncih0rqdcgp4bn6e4v5cr0ltb19g6es@4ax.com>
>Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>
>>On 2 Aug 2023 20:07:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
>>>Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>>
>>>>For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>>>
>>>Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropogenic_global_warming&redirect=no
>
>It is getting warmer because we are still coming out of the last ice age,
>in a few thousand years people like you will be whining because it's too
>cold.

The staggering ostrich like pig-ignorance you display is unfortunately
all too common amongst you geriatric gammon morons.

On 03/08/2023 in message <42enci50a9e3g57gaqv0mlgtn2nigeo8fm@4ax.com>
Pomegranate Bastard wrote:

>>It is getting warmer because we are still coming out of the last ice age,
>>in a few thousand years people like you will be whining because it's too
>>cold.
>
>The staggering ostrich like pig-ignorance you display is unfortunately
>all too common amongst you geriatric gammon morons.

You're too kind :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent
life are pointing away from Earth?

On 8/3/2023 9:08 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 03/08/2023 in message <9j5ncih0rqdcgp4bn6e4v5cr0ltb19g6es@4ax.com> Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>
>> On 2 Aug 2023 20:07:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
>>> Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>>
>>>> For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>>>
>>> Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropogenic_global_warming&redirect=no
>
> It is getting warmer because we are still coming out of the last ice age,
> in a few thousand years people like you will be whining because it's too cold.

I'm afraid the scientists are tired of explaining this to us.

There are slightly more than one hundred "gish gallop" theories
as to why it is getting warmer. For each "theory", the scientists
wrote a reply! However, try and find that web site now. All I can
find these days, is general descriptions. The IPCC reports would
have details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/

The time for debate is long over. It's too late now.

The solution is to solve it with pistols. At dawn.
My high school biology teacher, was right. He scared the
shit out of us, by predicting what the future held.
(We never told our parents, what we were taught in that
class. The class was called "Enriched Biology". And it
was, indeed, enriched. Pretty funny in hindsight. I particularly
liked the look on some of the students faces during that lecture.
Priceless comedy.) At the time, it seemed perfectly logical that all
our problems would be solved by war. Which isn't far off.
It is, unfortunately, the solution. Bend over and kiss
your ass good bye.

For the war to be effective, we need mass killing.
That will (eventually) drive down CO2 emissions.
Faster than any "more gentle" attempts that are never
going to work in time. So rather than being a war about
property ownership (which dictator plunders the economy),
it should rather be a war about head-count (no civilian spared).

I saw one sulphur dioxide article today, so they did
trot that puppy out again. So predictable. That's
a proposal to seed the atmosphere with SO2, to reduce
insolation and temperature rise. But we still haven't had
the balls to run a "test install" and do the science to
back up the idea. Sure, it's a theory, but it has to be
tested, and vetted against impact on farm output. Since
we are so piss-poor at simulation, it's hard to predict
what all the side-effects might be. Which is why it needs testing.
This is not a "cure", it is an "emergency workaround". It's
quite possible, that a country most impacted by air temperature,
will be forced to do the experiment for us :-/

Here's an article from today, involving atmospheric seeding attempts in Mexico:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/02/americas/mexico-cloud-seeding-drought-rain-climate-intl/index.html

By the way, if the Gulf Stream transport stops within the
next couple years, and just your island suffers a drop in
winter temperatures, that does *not* mean climate change is
a hoax. It means your free heat from the Gulf Stream is
not being delivered, and your climate will become a rough
approximation to the climates of countries at the same
latitude as you. Apparently, the thing breaking the transport,
is temporary, and the Gulf Stream free heat will eventually
come back. When your free heat comes back, there will be
grass growing in the dirt in Greenland.

Good luck,
Paul

On 03 Aug 2023 at 17:36:03 BST, "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> By the way, if the Gulf Stream transport stops within the
> next couple years, and just your island suffers a drop in
> winter temperatures, that does *not* mean climate change is
> a hoax. It means your free heat from the Gulf Stream is
> not being delivered, and your climate will become a rough
> approximation to the climates of countries at the same
> latitude as you.

Yar, we know this. About the free heat, I mean.

> Apparently, the thing breaking the transport,
> is temporary, and the Gulf Stream free heat will eventually
> come back. When your free heat comes back, there will be
> grass growing in the dirt in Greenland.

Actually, AIUI, conditions are right for us to be in an ice-age. (1) land mass
at South Pole, (2) land surrounding North Pole. Global warming or not, that
ain't gonna change any time soon. Interglacial at the minute.

--
Lady Astor: "If you were my husband I'd give you poison."
Churchill: "If you were my wife, I'd drink it."

On 03/08/2023 13:07, Colin Bignell wrote:
> On 02/08/2023 21:07, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
>> Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>
>>> For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>>
>> Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
>>
>
> Autonomous Guided Weapon
>
Arseholes Gulling Wankers
--
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker

On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 22:07:53 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> "Pomegranate Bastard" <pommyb@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:9j5ncih0rqdcgp4bn6e4v5cr0ltb19g6es@4ax.com...
>> On 2 Aug 2023 20:07:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
>>> Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>>
>>>> For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>>>
>>> Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropogenic_global_warming&redirect=no
>
> How does one distinguish between AGW and GW which would have happened
> even without humans? Just because global temperatures have risen in the
> last century or so as the population has risen and human-generated
> emissions have increased, that doesn't mean that *all* of it is *due* to
> the human activities. Some (amount to be debated!) may be due to natural
> phenomena over which we have no control.
>
> If turning off lights, driving less, not using coal/wood/gas for heating
> buildings etc will reduce (or slow the increase of) temperatures, then I
> suppose we need to suffer the reduction in lifestyle. If doing do will
> not make a *noticeable* difference because the majority is not affected
> by humans, then why should we suffer for no benefit.
>
> My feeling is that we should do as much as we can without suffering
> because we can no longer travel as easily, or can't heat our houses as
> easily or cheaply - until there is clear consensus as to what proportion
> of GW is attributable to things we can control.

It isnt even clear that what warming we have seen
is actually a bad thing even if the warming is real.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 22:44:25 +1000, whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Thursday, 3 August 2023 at 13:08:36 UTC+1, NY wrote:
>> "Pomegranate Bastard" <pom...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:9j5ncih0rqdcgp4bn...@4ax.com...
>> > On 2 Aug 2023 20:07:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgne...@outlook.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8...@4ax.com>
>> >>Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>> >>
>> >>Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
>> >
>> >
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropogenic_global_warming&redirect=no
>> How does one distinguish between AGW and GW which would have happened
>> even
>> without humans? Just because global temperatures have risen in the last
>> century or so as the population has risen and human-generated emissions
>> have
>> increased, that doesn't mean that *all* of it is *due* to the human
>> activities. Some (amount to be debated!) may be due to natural phenomena
>> over which we have no control.
>
> True but from most of the data and past records temperatures have
> increased by a few degees over years
> measured in millons rather than hundreds.
>
> I see this rather like some americans see gun control in that the more
> peolpe that have guns the safer
> they'll be a less people will get killed. So teach children how to use
> guns as early as possible and give them guns then
> fewer would get killed.
>
>>
>> If turning off lights, driving less, not using coal/wood/gas for heating
>> buildings etc will reduce (or slow the increase of) temperatures, then I
>> suppose we need to suffer the reduction in lifestyle. If doing do will
>> not
>> make a *noticeable* difference because the majority is not affected by
>> humans, then why should we suffer for no benefit.
>
> Well I'd agree but I do think the evidence is reasonably clear.
> But you'd also have to define suffering.
>
> I hated the hot weather last year, I've yet to suffer due to the rain in
> the UK or the
> fires and deaths in southern Europe and American.
> But I might 'suffer' if it affects food prices

Unlikely given that most of us don't spend a
very big percentage of our income on food.

>> My feeling is that we should do as much as we can without suffering
>> because
>> we can no longer travel as easily, or can't heat our houses as easily or
>> cheaply - until there is clear consensus as to what proportion of GW is
>> attributable to things we can control.
>
> I think that has already happened. Otherwise why would they globel
> temperature
> have increased so rapidily over the last 100 years when it previously
> took millions of years.

Its a myth that that has happened, given the ice ages.

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 02:36:03 +1000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 8/3/2023 9:08 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> On 03/08/2023 in message <9j5ncih0rqdcgp4bn6e4v5cr0ltb19g6es@4ax.com>
>> Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>
>>> On 2 Aug 2023 20:07:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
>>>> Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>>>>
>>>> Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropogenic_global_warming&redirect=no
>>
>> It is getting warmer because we are still coming out of the last ice
>> age,
>> in a few thousand years people like you will be whining because it's
>> too cold.
>
> I'm afraid the scientists are tired of explaining this to us.
>
> There are slightly more than one hundred "gish gallop" theories
> as to why it is getting warmer. For each "theory", the scientists
> wrote a reply! However, try and find that web site now. All I can
> find these days, is general descriptions. The IPCC reports would
> have details.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
>
> https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
> https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/
>
> The time for debate is long over. It's too late now.
>
> The solution is to solve it with pistols. At dawn.
> My high school biology teacher, was right. He scared the
> shit out of us, by predicting what the future held.
> (We never told our parents, what we were taught in that
> class. The class was called "Enriched Biology". And it
> was, indeed, enriched. Pretty funny in hindsight. I particularly
> liked the look on some of the students faces during that lecture.
> Priceless comedy.) At the time, it seemed perfectly logical that all
> our problems would be solved by war.

That's mindless bullshit. Even WW1 and WW2 didnt actually
kill a very big percentage of the world populaiton and all of that
became irrelevant giving the inevitable baby boom that followed.

Quite apart from the immense consumption of fossil
fuels any modern war inevitably produces now.

> Which isn't far off.

There will be no more world wars given
that nukes make those unthinkable now.

And even major wars like the first gulf ware don't
actually kill all that many people anymore and see
an immense boom in fossil fuel consumption moving
masses of military hardware and personel half way
around the world.

Its far from clear what a full nuclear
holocaust would actually do to climate.

> It is, unfortunately, the solution.

Bullshit.

> Bend over and kiss your ass good bye.

That has never been the case in any important war.

> For the war to be effective, we need mass killing.

Which didnt happen in any war. Even the Monguls
who were into rocking up at a particulaar city and
quite literally killing every single living thing,
including all the animals as well as the humans,
never got even close to that result.

> That will (eventually) drive down CO2 emissions.

Bullshit. It never has in the past, no evidence that it would do that now.

> Faster than any "more gentle" attempts that are never
> going to work in time. So rather than being a war about
> property ownership (which dictator plunders the economy),
> it should rather be a war about head-count (no civilian spared).

Didnt work for the Mongols and wouldn't work now either.

> I saw one sulphur dioxide article today, so they did
> trot that puppy out again. So predictable. That's
> a proposal to seed the atmosphere with SO2, to reduce
> insolation and temperature rise. But we still haven't had
> the balls to run a "test install" and do the science to
> back up the idea. Sure, it's a theory, but it has to be
> tested, and vetted against impact on farm output. Since
> we are so piss-poor at simulation, it's hard to predict
> what all the side-effects might be. Which is why it needs testing.
> This is not a "cure", it is an "emergency workaround". It's
> quite possible, that a country most impacted by air temperature,
> will be forced to do the experiment for us :-/

Much more likely that what minimal climate
change we do see turns out to the no bad thing.

> Here's an article from today, involving atmospheric seeding attempts in
> Mexico:

> https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/02/americas/mexico-cloud-seeding-drought-rain-climate-intl/index.html

We did those for years and it turned out to be a complete waste of money.

> By the way, if the Gulf Stream transport stops within the
> next couple years, and just your island suffers a drop in
> winter temperatures, that does *not* mean climate change is
> a hoax. It means your free heat from the Gulf Stream is
> not being delivered, and your climate will become a rough
> approximation to the climates of countries at the same
> latitude as you. Apparently, the thing breaking the transport,
> is temporary, and the Gulf Stream free heat will eventually
> come back. When your free heat comes back, there will be
> grass growing in the dirt in Greenland.
>
> Good luck,

On Fri, 04 Aug 2023 10:17:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 03 Aug 2023 22:07:53 +1000, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Pomegranate Bastard" <pommyb@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:9j5ncih0rqdcgp4bn6e4v5cr0ltb19g6es@4ax.com...
>>> On 2 Aug 2023 20:07:48 GMT, "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 02/08/2023 in message <2r3lcip3uc71cm0f8p7ip203uqf4hgbv2n@4ax.com>
>>>> Pomegranate Bastard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For example, those who refuse to accept the reality of AGW.
>>>>
>>>> Or somebody who has no idea what that is, like me?
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthropogenic_global_warming&redirect=no
>>
>> How does one distinguish between AGW and GW which would have happened
>> even without humans? Just because global temperatures have risen in the
>> last century or so as the population has risen and human-generated
>> emissions have increased, that doesn't mean that *all* of it is *due* to
>> the human activities. Some (amount to be debated!) may be due to natural
>> phenomena over which we have no control.
>>
>> If turning off lights, driving less, not using coal/wood/gas for heating
>> buildings etc will reduce (or slow the increase of) temperatures, then I
>> suppose we need to suffer the reduction in lifestyle. If doing do will
>> not make a *noticeable* difference because the majority is not affected
>> by humans, then why should we suffer for no benefit.
>>
>> My feeling is that we should do as much as we can without suffering
>> because we can no longer travel as easily, or can't heat our houses as
>> easily or cheaply - until there is clear consensus as to what proportion
>> of GW is attributable to things we can control.
>
>It isnt even clear that what warming we have seen
>is actually a bad thing even if the warming is real.

It's clear to everyone that isn't stupid.

On 03/08/2023 13:44, whisky-dave wrote:
> True but from most of the data and past records temperatures have increased by a few degees over years
> measured in millons rather than hundreds.

Hundreds of thousands of years actually, but that doesn't affect your
argument. (Recent evidence of trees growing in Greenland geologically
recently)

Andy
--