A new culprit in the Global Warming debate

[op2]

No, the argument hinges on two factors. Is man responsible for global warming AND is it harmful? We must have HARM before remedy, right?

While I can imagine there could be some good things about the earth warming, the fact that so much human development is on the edge of the ocean would trump that I'd think. Not only is a lot of the development on the ocean but much of that land is pretty flat so that if the ocean levels rise not only the developed land on the ocean gets flooded but also a lot of land inland.

Not only would a lot of previously useful land simply be lost but it would be the land that contained a whole lot of expensive development.

Maybe we could buy some land far inland with the hope that it'll be oceanfront property someday, like that villain in the Superman movie did when he got land inland in California then tried to make it oceanfront property by creating an earthquake and having a big chunk of California break off.

 

[CAJUNEER_rivals]

So, if our models are inaccurate should we not proceed with caution versus hubris? That sure seems like the definition of stupidity.

The hubris is found in demanding implementation of solutions to problems about which we have limited understanding. Do we know all the factors causing climate change? Do we know with certainty that humans are one of the factors at all? Models are based on postulations. That's why there are "models" and not a "model." The arrogance is comes from the radicals speaking in absolutes and never considering the randomness of our universe.

 

[WVPATX]

While I can imagine there could be some good things about the earth warming, the fact that so much human development is on the edge of the ocean would trump that I'd think. Not only is a lot of the development on the ocean but much of that land is pretty flat so that if the ocean levels rise not only the developed land on the ocean gets flooded but also a lot of land inland.

Not only would a lot of previously useful land simply be lost but it would be the land that contained a whole lot of expensive development.

Maybe we could buy some land far inland with the hope that it'll be oceanfront property someday, like that villain in the Superman movie did when he got land inland in California then tried to make it oceanfront property by creating an earthquake and having a big chunk of California break off.

OP, we have had very modest temp rise over the last 150 years since we emerged from the Little Ice Age. We have now had a hiatus. What if temperatures continue to moderate or even get colder. Heck, some scientists are now saying we are entering another mini ice age as sun spot activity is ebbing.

Again, we have too little information. We have no idea what the temp will be in 2050. We have melting in the Arctic and very significant sea ice extent in the Antarctic. Until we know that man is responsible and that temperatures rise is dangerous, we would be foolish to greatly harm our economy by raising energy prices and crippling 3rd world countries.

 

[atlkvb]

[QUOTE="WVPATX, post: 1470797, member: 2180 What are you afraid of?[/QUOTE]

The Truth.

 

[op2]

OP, we have had very modest temp rise over the last 150 years since we emerged from the Little Ice Age. We have now had a hiatus. What if temperatures continue to moderate or even get colder. Heck, some scientists are now saying we are entering another mini ice age as sun spot activity is ebbing.

Again, we have too little information. We have no idea what the temp will be in 2050. We have melting in the Arctic and very significant sea ice extent in the Antarctic. Until we know that man is responsible and that temperatures rise is dangerous, we would be foolish to greatly harm our economy by raising energy prices and crippling 3rd world countries.

Go argue about it in the journals with the climate scientists.

 

[WVPATX]

Go argue about it in the journals with the climate scientists.

Which ones, the over 300 that urged Trump to withdraw from the 25 year old UN Environment Treaty?

Hundreds of scientists and policy experts sent a letter to President Donald Trump asking him to withdraw from a major United Nations environmental treaty ratified during the Bush administration.

More than 300 eminent scientists signed the letter to Trump, delivered Thursday, arguing he should pull out of the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) because it targets carbon dioxide — a gas essential for life.

CO2 “is not a pollutant but a major benefit to agriculture and other life on Earth,” reads the petition, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Observations since the UNFCCC was written 25 years ago show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign — much less than initial model predictions.”

Trump promised to pull out of the Paris agreement on global warming, which went into effect in November 2016. President Barack Obama signed the U.S. up to cut greenhouse gases 26 to 28 percent.

 

[op2]

Which ones, the over 300 that urged Trump to withdraw from the 25 year old UN Environment Treaty?

Hundreds of scientists and policy experts sent a letter to President Donald Trump asking him to withdraw from a major United Nations environmental treaty ratified during the Bush administration.

More than 300 eminent scientists signed the letter to Trump, delivered Thursday, arguing he should pull out of the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) because it targets carbon dioxide — a gas essential for life.

CO2 “is not a pollutant but a major benefit to agriculture and other life on Earth,” reads the petition, obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Observations since the UNFCCC was written 25 years ago show that warming from increased atmospheric CO2 will be benign — much less than initial model predictions.”

Trump promised to pull out of the Paris agreement on global warming, which went into effect in November 2016. President Barack Obama signed the U.S. up to cut greenhouse gases 26 to 28 percent.

All of the climate scientists.

 

[WVPATX]

All of the climate scientists.

So all the climate scientists are in full agreement? They know man is responsible? They know how much the temperatures will rise? They know how fast the temperatures will rise? They know when it becomes dangerous? They know all this even though none of them predicted the hiatus?

 

[mneilmont]

Fossil fuels put carbon into the air, which warms the planet and thus incurs costs to deal the change. But society as a whole has to pay the cost because the bill comes due down the road when more flooding occurs or more severe storms occur, etc, which as I understand it is already happening now.

Thus instead of society paying those costs down the road, the consumers of fossil fuels should pay the costs now. And if the consumer of fossil fuels pays the cost now then using fossil fuels becomes less attractive, leading people to use less of them in the form of using less energy in general or switching to other forms of energy.

Both of you skirted my conclusion. Under either scenario the CONSUMER pays the bill regardless of when it is paid. The cost accountants are just showing it in the cost of goods. If they wanted to, they could make it a separate line on the invoice. It provides no benefit, so why increase the cost by isolating it as a separate item on invoice

 

[op2]

So all the climate scientists are in full agreement? They know man is responsible? They know how much the temperatures will rise? They know how fast the temperatures will rise? They know when it becomes dangerous? They know all this even though none of them predicted the hiatus?

No, I doubt all scientists in any field are in complete agreement about anything. I'm just saying that the scientific community as a whole is the opinion that should be weighed.

 

[op2]

Both of you skirted my conclusion. Under either scenario the CONSUMER pays the bill regardless of when it is paid. The cost accountants are just showing it in the cost of goods. If they wanted to, they could make it a separate line on the invoice. It provides no benefit, so why increase the cost by isolating it as a separate item on invoice

In one scenario the consumer of the good in question pays the cost of it.

In the other scenario all consumers, whether the buy the good or not, pay the cost of it in the form of society as a whole paying for the effects of the pollution.

The former is preferable from an economic efficiency standpoint.

 

[WVPATX]

No, I doubt all scientists in any field are in complete agreement about anything. I'm just saying that the scientific community as a whole is the opinion that should be weighed.

We can weigh anything any theory we want. But public policy that profoundly affects our people, their life styles, the economy, 3rd world development and the like need a lot more evidence than we currently possess.

 

[WVPATX]

Both of you skirted my conclusion. Under either scenario the CONSUMER pays the bill regardless of when it is paid. The cost accountants are just showing it in the cost of goods. If they wanted to, they could make it a separate line on the invoice. It provides no benefit, so why increase the cost by isolating it as a separate item on invoice

You're right. Generally speaking, all taxes are borne by the consumer. A carbon tax would hit those most vulnerable, very regressive tax. And hurts the parts of the country that are less populated the most.

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

I'd also be careful not to overreact and in the process do great harm to the people of this planet. We all want clean air and water. We also want people to be lifted out of poverty enabling them to lead good, productive lives. It provides the opportunity for much greater world stability and even peace.

Your point of view on poverty sounds like you think it's a self-imposed condition. There's a tremendous amount of information on the poorest places on Earth and the patterns/precursors/causes of poverty and it usually originates from forced colonization or diaspora, i.e. Congo, India, Mexico, Ecuador, South Dakota Native Americans, Mali, etc. or from resource depletion and food shortage leading to mass migrations to urban centers, i.e. Syria.
Your grow the developed economies first perspective and let the developing nations catch-up while they, not us, use alternative energy resources is wrong on almost every level I can think of...The polluters basically shifting the struggle of change on the lesser nations who pollute on an astronomically lower level and are less-energy dependent. Have you looked out an airplane window lately over any major City in the US?

 

[WVPATX]

Your point of view on poverty sounds like you think it's a self-imposed condition. There's a tremendous amount of information on the poorest places on Earth and the patterns/precursors/causes of poverty and it usually originates from forced colonization or diaspora, i.e. Congo, India, Mexico, Ecuador, South Dakota Native Americans, Mali, etc. or from resource depletion and food shortage leading to mass migrations to urban centers, i.e. Syria.
Your grow the developed economies first perspective and let the developing nations catch-up while they, not us, use alternative energy resources is wrong on almost every level I can think of...The polluters basically shifting the struggle of change on the lesser nations who pollute on an astronomically lower level and are less-energy dependent. Have you looked out an airplane window lately over any major City in the US?

The US economy as were all major developed economies were built around cheap energy. Can you name any other asset in any economy that has been more beneficial to mankind than fossil fuels?

Regardless of how third world poverty came to be, if they want to climb out of poverty, they will need access to cheap, available energy. Just like the United States needed access to that same cheap, available energy. The United Nations plan is to transfer trillions of dollars from developed countries to undeveloped countries to help offset the cost differential.

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

The US economy as were all major developed economies were built around cheap energy. Can you name any other asset in any economy that has been more beneficial to mankind than fossil fuels?

Regardless of how third world poverty came to be, if they want to climb out of poverty, they will need access to cheap, available energy. Just like the United States needed access to that same cheap, available energy. The United Nations plan is to transfer trillions of dollars from developed countries to undeveloped countries to help offset the cost differential.

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

Truly, I think it's time we jump off the hyper-industrial monopoly board as a planet and get more aligned with our cummulative power to collaborate. There are so many completely unconscious but powerful corporations holding every branch of human existence under control i.e. Government, water rights, agriculture, medicine, etc. . The majority of these companies have zero interest in sustainability and only focus on profits. Sure, if you want to grow an economy in 1930, then yes, energy is crucial but we're moving into many new and real crisis around our water and food chain. Just saying...

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Shouldn't more information about possible climate actions be good? Shouldn't this knowledge be welcomed? It may have something to do with warming, it may now. But these scientists are asserting that our past temperatures were influenced by the orbits or Mars and Earth.

The Fahrenheit scale for temperature measurement wasn't invented until 1714, just over 300 years ago. Celsius was developed in 1948.

I guess in 1700 there were only two temperatures; hot and cold.

I'd tend to support this study as we really only know for certain about our actually climate variances for a few hundred years. If something helps to discover climate variances farther back, even if it includes Mars, I'm all for it.

But I do believe that climate is both cyclical and can me influenced by man.

 

[mneilmont]

The US economy as were all major developed economies were built around cheap energy. Can you name any other asset in any economy that has been more beneficial to mankind than fossil fuels?

Regardless of how third world poverty came to be, if they want to climb out of poverty, they will need access to cheap, available energy. Just like the United States needed access to that same cheap, available energy. The United Nations plan is to transfer trillions of dollars from developed countries to undeveloped countries to help offset the cost differential.

Tri State, can we look at this Alt Energy thing differently. Get the UN to underwrite taking a small country of 10-50 million located where the sun shines 365 on an island totally surrounded by water. Get this developing country to operate totally on alternate energy so cheaply that it would be advantageous to the industrial countries to switch from fossil fuels.

Seems to be easier to convince the world that it can be done with this model country sitting in perfect atmosphere to make the dream work than to try to develop a workable system for a country of 330 million. If you can perfect the alt fuel source to operate small country and customize to work for other countries at more economical source of energy. We could all convert to alt fuel. Just in case a model can not be built and made adaptable to other locations, we could start developing a better usage of fossil fuels. I am sure reasonable global warmists would be willing to underwrite by putting their money where mouth is.

 

[op2]

Tri State, can we look at this Alt Energy thing differently. Get the UN to underwrite taking a small country of 10-50 million located where the sun shines 365 on an island totally surrounded by water. Get this developing country to operate totally on alternate energy so cheaply that it would be advantageous to the industrial countries to switch from fossil fuels.

Seems to be easier to convince the world that it can be done with this model country sitting in perfect atmosphere to make the dream work than to try to develop a workable system for a country of 330 million. If you can perfect the alt fuel source to operate small country and customize to work for other countries at more economical source of energy. We could all convert to alt fuel. Just in case a model can not be built and made adaptable to other locations, we could start developing a better usage of fossil fuels. I am sure reasonable global warmists would be willing to underwrite by putting their money where mouth is.

We don't need to convince the rest of the world. They're already convinced. And we don't need a workable system for 330 million because it doesn't all happen at once. It's a transition. It's going to take awhile, naturally since it's such a big country, but it's going to happen and in fact it already is.

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

Tri State, can we look at this Alt Energy thing differently. Get the UN to underwrite taking a small country of 10-50 million located where the sun shines 365 on an island totally surrounded by water. Get this developing country to operate totally on alternate energy so cheaply that it would be advantageous to the industrial countries to switch from fossil fuels.

Seems to be easier to convince the world that it can be done with this model country sitting in perfect atmosphere to make the dream work than to try to develop a workable system for a country of 330 million. If you can perfect the alt fuel source to operate small country and customize to work for other countries at more economical source of energy. We could all convert to alt fuel. Just in case a model can not be built and made adaptable to other locations, we could start developing a better usage of fossil fuels. I am sure reasonable global warmists would be willing to underwrite by putting their money where mouth is.

The model is Germany for a major economy. The problem with an island out there is the technology evolution requires innovation which is driven, often, by competition. There's also the issue of economy of scale, patents, blah,blah...

 

[WVPATX]

Truly, I think it's time we jump off the hyper-industrial monopoly board as a planet and get more aligned with our cummulative power to collaborate. There are so many completely unconscious but powerful corporations holding every branch of human existence under control i.e. Government, water rights, agriculture, medicine, etc. . The majority of these companies have zero interest in sustainability and only focus on profits. Sure, if you want to grow an economy in 1930, then yes, energy is crucial but we're moving into many new and real crisis around our water and food chain. Just saying...

I am not much into conspiracy theories but you sound like you would be much more comfortable under communist regimes. I think they think exactly like you.

 

[WVPATX]

Tri State, can we look at this Alt Energy thing differently. Get the UN to underwrite taking a small country of 10-50 million located where the sun shines 365 on an island totally surrounded by water. Get this developing country to operate totally on alternate energy so cheaply that it would be advantageous to the industrial countries to switch from fossil fuels.

Seems to be easier to convince the world that it can be done with this model country sitting in perfect atmosphere to make the dream work than to try to develop a workable system for a country of 330 million. If you can perfect the alt fuel source to operate small country and customize to work for other countries at more economical source of energy. We could all convert to alt fuel. Just in case a model can not be built and made adaptable to other locations, we could start developing a better usage of fossil fuels. I am sure reasonable global warmists would be willing to underwrite by putting their money where mouth is.

Most intelligent warmists know that green energy simply cannot compete with fossil fuels on a cost basis. But there are so few intelligent warmists around that it is difficult to tell. After all, Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars off of people that don't know the slightest thing about energy but are true believers of warmist theory.

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

I am not much into conspiracy theories but you sound like you would be much more comfortable under communist regimes. I think they think exactly like you.

Interesting, what conspiracy are you talking about? Curious, do you think villages are communist?

 

[WVPATX]

Interesting, what conspiracy are you talking about? Curious, do you think villages are communist?

You posted:

There are so many completely unconscious but powerful corporations holding every branch of human existence under control i.e. Government, water rights, agriculture, medicine, etc. . The majority of these companies have zero interest in sustainability and only focus on profits

If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

You posted:

There are so many completely unconscious but powerful corporations holding every branch of human existence under control i.e. Government, water rights, agriculture, medicine, etc. . The majority of these companies have zero interest in sustainability and only focus on profits

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Sorry to break it you buddy but this is a proven fact for over 60-years, maybe it was a conspiracy prior to this 1961 Time magazine article but actually, not really at all, it's just the sheepeople keep believing the dogma so the corporations/politicians keep feeding it.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,826890,00.html

 

[atlkvb]

In one scenario the consumer of the good in question pays the cost of it.

In the other scenario all consumers, whether the buy the good or not, pay the cost of it in the form of society as a whole paying for the effects of the pollution.

The former is preferable from an economic efficiency standpoint.

There you go again Op2, "imposing" costs onto consumers without their approval or permission. I thought the Left hated folks "imposing" their will onto independent thinkers without their permission?

The most "economically efficient" model is the one where producers and consumers meet at supply v demand and cost v price for one reason= PROFITS. There is NO other more important or efficient economic model "negative externalities" from alleged 'pollution' costs aside.

For you Op2: Econ 101
Why do do businesses need to make profits?
http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t03b.htm

What are the benefits to a business of profits?
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/benefits-making-profit-38877.html

 

[op2]

There you go again Op2, "imposing" costs onto consumers without their approval or permission. I thought the Left hated folks "imposing" their will onto independent thinkers without their permission?

The most "economically efficient" model is the one where producers and consumers meet at supply v demand and cost v price for one reason= PROFITS. There is NO other more important or efficient economic model "negative externalities" from alleged 'pollution' costs aside.

For you Op2: Econ 101
Why do do businesses need to make profits?
http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t03b.htm

What are the benefits to a business of profits?
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/benefits-making-profit-38877.html

I don't think you know basic economics. You're looking at it solely from the business side. The consumer doesn't particularly care if the business makes a profit.

That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about though. From the POV of the business they want to make as much of a profit as possible and from the POV of the consumer he wants to a good product for as low a cost as possible. But neither of those are relevant to the market running efficiently. Here's some reading that you likely won't do.

http://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/micro9.pdf

 

[WVPATX]

Sorry to break it you buddy but this is a proven fact for over 60-years, maybe it was a conspiracy prior to this 1961 Time magazine article but actually, not really at all, it's just the sheepeople keep believing the dogma so the corporations/politicians keep feeding it.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,826890,00.html

Like I said, your philosophy much closer to socialism/communism. Which are you?

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

Like I said, your philosophy much closer to socialism/communism. Which are you?

Hmm, if I have to choose a label it's probably a derivative of Conscious Capitalist with a strong focus on the environment.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.entrepreneur.com/amphtml/246478

 

[WVPATX]

Hmm, if I have to choose a label it's probably a derivative of Conscious Capitalist with a strong focus on the environment.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.entrepreneur.com/amphtml/246478

No way you're a capitalist.

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

No way you're a capitalist.

You may consider expanding your box, maybe try an octagon or tetrahedron, circles are always good too.

 

[op2]

You may consider expanding your box, maybe try an octagon or tetrahedrin.

You have to consider who you're dealing with. I an generally for free market economics and I read The Economist each week and like it and mostly agree with yet and yet in the eyes of WVPATX someone like me is a Socialist.

To WVPATX people's economic views can be broken down into three groups.

1. Someone that never in any way criticizes a business is a capitalist.

2. Someone that agrees with free markets but doesn't believe they should be completely unfettered, like me, is a Socialist.

3. Someone that is anywhere from the center leftward on the political spectrum is a Communist.

 

[Wvufootballfantastic]

Roger dat. Good we all talk, I guess.

 

[D. Denzil Finney]

As I've posted many, many times, our climate is far too complex at this moment for scientist to accurately model. Now you introduce potential factors like this and the complexity goes off the charts.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/02/...te-change-is-found-but-its-not-of-this-earth/

All I know about this; if the ocean level comes up about 90', I will be the proud owner of ocean front property, and most all of southern NJ will be underwater.

 

[mneilmont]

We don't need to convince the rest of the world. They're already convinced. And we don't need a workable system for 330 million because it doesn't all happen at once. It's a transition. It's going to take awhile, naturally since it's such a big country, but it's going to happen and in fact it already is.

Short response translation - you do not think there is any way that you can make a perfect controlled situation that can compete with fossil produced energy. Why would you not want to create a perfect model under utopian atmosphere. If it is possible to build your energy source that would compete with fossil fuels economically, why would you not perfect the model and duplicate it in one step and transition the developed countries? Why do you want to go directly to the test countries and introduce your product incrementally. Do you really believe that your system will work in a free country? As I read your side, you want to discontinue use of fossil fuels and transfer to clean energy. Whether or not it will work is immaterial. You want to force a cold turkey change. Have you been able to convince our economic competive nations to compete on a level field? No. You want the competition to have advantage so they can catch up. That is going to be a tough sell. I am not going to buy into any plan that US has to operate with a voluntary handicap.

 

[atlkvb]

I don't think you know basic economics. You're looking at it solely from the business side. The consumer doesn't particularly care if the business makes a profit.

Op2 if you can show me a business that doesn't want profits, or a consumer who makes a purchase based on anything other than price (no matter what it is high or low) I want you to link me to them.

I asked you a while back for the economic model that's driven by factors beyond price and cost competition. I'm still waiting for you to provide that analysis.

From the POV of the business they want to make as much of a profit as possible and from the POV of the consumer he wants to a good product for as low a cost as possible. But neither of those are relevant to the market running efficiently.

Op2 that dynamic you mention IS the "market".
(and you said I don't understand basic economics?)

So what's the name of your Mary Jane supplier, he's obviously hooked you up with some good sh*t!

 

[op2]

Short response translation - you do not think there is any way that you can make a perfect controlled situation that can compete with fossil produced energy. Why would you not want to create a perfect model under utopian atmosphere. If it is possible to build your energy source that would compete with fossil fuels economically, why would you not perfect the model and duplicate it in one step and transition the developed countries? Why do you want to go directly to the test countries and introduce your product incrementally. Do you really believe that your system will work in a free country? As I read your side, you want to discontinue use of fossil fuels and transfer to clean energy. Whether or not it will work is immaterial. You want to force a cold turkey change. Have you been able to convince our economic competive nations to compete on a level field? No. You want the competition to have advantage so they can catch up. That is going to be a tough sell. I am not going to buy into any plan that US has to operate with a voluntary handicap.

Because it's a tremendously large project and it's going to take a long time. I don't know where you got the cold turkey stuff. That's just silly.

 

[op2]

Op2 if you can show me a business that doesn't want profits, or a consumer who makes a purchase based on anything other than price (no matter what it is high or low) I want you to link me to them.

I asked you a while back for the economic model that's driven by factors beyond price and cost competition. I'm still waiting for you to provide that analysis.




Op2 that 2 dynamic you mention IS the "market".
(and you said I don't understand basic economics?)

So what's the name of your Mary Jane supplier, he's obviously hooked you up with some good sh*t!

"Op2 if you can show me a business that doesn't want profits, or a consumer who makes a purchase based on anything other than price (no matter what it is high or low) I want you to link me to them."

I"m sorry but I just can't take you seriously anymore. I EXPLICITLY said businesses want to make profits and consumers want to buy products at a low price and then you respond as if I'm claiming otherwise. You simply aren't bothering to read my posts before responding.

 

[atlkvb]

You have to consider who you're dealing with. I an generally for free market economics and I read The Economist each week and like it and mostly agree with yet and yet in the eyes of WVPATX someone like me is a Socialist.

To WVPATX people's economic views can be broken down into three groups.

1. Someone that never in any way criticizes a business is a capitalist.

2. Someone that agrees with free markets but doesn't believe they should be completely unfettered, like me, is a Socialist.

3. Someone that is anywhere from the center leftward on the political spectrum is a Communist.

Simple question for you Op2.

Do you want someone "dictating" what you can buy, and what you will pay for it?

If so who?

What?

If not, why not?

Bottom line question:

Who should decide what you buy and what it costs, you or someone else?