Congrats climate changers: your efforts are making poll #s go down

[Paratus]

If you're serious about understanding statistical analysis, and you actually have the attention span necessary to make it through a 10 minute video, then by all means Pay this dude on the Internet $10 to Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge! which is actually correctly determining whether 900/1000 times series were randomly generated or have a 1 degC /century rise applied

Fixed it for you and anyone who doesn't have the time to sit through your video.

I don't need someone to do a statistical analysis of 1000 made up temperature series to prove the Earth is warming. Conservation of energy is enough to do that.

 

[glenn1]

There is going to be a paradigm shift in transportation from now to 2025, with self driving electric cars. I don't know about you, but a self driving electric car would meet my family's automotive needs far better than my current gas powered car that needs my undivided attention when operating.

So explain how implementing draconian carbon taxes and similar policies 20 years ago like you wanted would have helped that scenario come true. The technology didn't exist then, likely would have never existed had you gotten your way. Which is exactly the point I've been making - stop trying to fuck over the economy in the name of saving it and the market will fix the problem for you. We didn't fix the problem of animal shit in the streets and resulting sanitation disasters by banning horse drawn carriages or attempting to reduce their use by artificially increasing the costs of hay to feed them, it was resolved when technology came about to replace it with a superior solution like the automobile.

 

[Paratus]

So explain how implementing draconian carbon taxes and similar policies 20 years ago like you wanted would have helped that scenario come true. The technology didn't exist then, likely would have never existed had you gotten your way. Which is exactly the point I've been making - stop trying to fuck over the economy in the name of saving it and the market will fix the problem for you. We didn't fix the problem of animal shit in the streets and resulting sanitation disasters by banning horse drawn carriages or attempting to reduce their use by artificially increasing the costs of hay to feed them, it was resolved when technology came about to replace it with a superior solution like the automobile.

Yes all carbon taxes are draconian. All of them.

Yes like the market fixed chlorofluorocarbons. :\

 

[chucky2]

No magical thinking involved. Just what a possible solution could look like. Here's a look at whether it might be feasible.
Posted by me in another thread: snip

That's great and all, really it is, but it doesn't (at least not that I can see) account for all the other 1st world standard of living stuff like building shit and products (and I mean all products, from cars to all the shit people buy every year). I could actually see, and even support if properly implemented, nuke for 3rd world countries, however we can't even get nuke done in our first world countries (but I concede it would be easier to get permission and move forward in 3rd world because you can just override the EcoCrazies and NIMBY folks, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad...but who would bank roll it?), let alone 3rd world.

You are not going to get around the simple fact that the average 3rd worlder accounts for far less total CO2 production to support/maintain their lifestyle than a 1st worlder. The sheep herder bought some shitty cast off clothes made in China, a new machete, and a bell for his sheep...there's his total CO2 accounting for the year. Rich Proggie Jane's new iPod 10 that she had to have because her 9 was just so yesterday, along with her 100th set of clothes, shoes, jewelry, etc. shipped all the way from China to the US just dwarfed the whole sheep herders village. And you want Billions more sheep herders, and want them to be like Jane...because magically they'll be resulting in less CO2 output. Yeah...OK...Believe on...

 

[fskimospy]

That's great and all, really it is, but it doesn't (at least not that I can see) account for all the other 1st world standard of living stuff like building shit and products (and I mean all products, from cars to all the shit people buy every year). I could actually see, and even support if properly implemented, nuke for 3rd world countries, however we can't even get nuke done in our first world countries (but I concede it would be easier to get permission and move forward in 3rd world because you can just override the EcoCrazies and NIMBY folks, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad...but who would bank roll it?), let alone 3rd world.

You are not going to get around the simple fact that the average 3rd worlder accounts for far less total CO2 production to support/maintain their lifestyle than a 1st worlder. The sheep herder bought some shitty cast off clothes made in China, a new machete, and a bell for his sheep...there's his total CO2 accounting for the year. Rich Proggie Jane's new iPod 10 that she had to have because her 9 was just so yesterday, along with her 100th set of clothes, shoes, jewelry, etc. shipped all the way from China to the US just dwarfed the whole sheep herders village. And you want Billions more sheep herders, and want them to be like Jane...because magically they'll be resulting in less CO2 output. Yeah...OK...Believe on...

I like how you asked for a quantitative response and then when given it resorted to totally unsupported emotional ranting.

Well done.

 

[senseamp]

So explain how implementing draconian carbon taxes and similar policies 20 years ago like you wanted would have helped that scenario come true. The technology didn't exist then, likely would have never existed had you gotten your way. Which is exactly the point I've been making - stop trying to fuck over the economy in the name of saving it and the market will fix the problem for you. We didn't fix the problem of animal shit in the streets and resulting sanitation disasters by banning horse drawn carriages or attempting to reduce their use by artificially increasing the costs of hay to feed them, it was resolved when technology came about to replace it with a superior solution like the automobile.

What do you consider "draconian?"
Including the actual cost of externalities in the price of the product? That's how markets are supposed to work. If your actions impose a cost on someone else, which is the case from global warming, that cost should be reflected in market price. It's the role of the government to make sure that price of externalities is reflected in the markets.
You can't ride a horse on public roads and let it sh!t all over the place without cleaning it up.

 

[chucky2]

I like how you asked for a quantitative response and then when given it resorted to totally unsupported emotional ranting.

Well done.

Hey, I can't help it's tackling (well, arguably attempting to tackle, but I'm generous so we'll just say tackling) one small piece of the puzzle. I mean, it's not like I'm a Believer and living a 1st world lifestyle like a total hypocrite, I really would like to see at least pollution reigned in.

EDIT: And he's addressing energy with lots of nice magical and hopeful assumptions, none of that is done deal, funded, or strongly perhaps even desired. We won't even get into legit reporting of numbers... Believe on little Nick, Believe on...buwhahaha...

Well done?

 

[fskimospy]

Hey, I can't help it's tackling (well, arguably attempting to tackle, but I'm generous so we'll just say tackling) one small piece of the puzzle. I mean, it's not like I'm a Believer and living a 1st world lifestyle like a total hypocrite, I really would like to see at least pollution reigned in.

EDIT: And he's addressing energy with lots of nice magical and hopeful assumptions, none of that is done deal, funded, or strongly perhaps even desired. We won't even get into legit reporting of numbers... Believe on little Nick, Believe on...buwhahaha...

Well done?

It is funny to watch you flail.

 

[Zorkorist]

So explain how implementing draconian carbon taxes and similar policies 20 years ago like you wanted would have helped that scenario come true. The technology didn't exist then, likely would have never existed had you gotten your way. Which is exactly the point I've been making - stop trying to fuck over the economy in the name of saving it and the market will fix the problem for you. We didn't fix the problem of animal shit in the streets and resulting sanitation disasters by banning horse drawn carriages or attempting to reduce their use by artificially increasing the costs of hay to feed them, it was resolved when technology came about to replace it with a superior solution like the automobile.

Good post.

-John

 

[Paratus]

Hey, I can't help it's tackling (well, arguably attempting to tackle, but I'm generous so we'll just say tackling) one small piece of the puzzle. I mean, it's not like I'm a Believer and living a 1st world lifestyle like a total hypocrite, I really would like to see at least pollution reigned in.

EDIT: And he's addressing energy with lots of nice magical and hopeful assumptions, none of that is done deal, funded, or strongly perhaps even desired. We won't even get into legit reporting of numbers... Believe on little Nick, Believe on...buwhahaha...

Well done?

Well I can't solve all the worlds problems in a post on AT P&N. Sorry.

Plus what you call magical is actually called bounding. I wanted to see if it was physically feasible to support the entire world at 1st world standard of living.

You seem to think it's an insurmountable problem. It's not it's just a very big problem.

And obviously it requires more than just energy. It requires security, infrastructure and a lot more. I'm not the only one that feels this way. Look at what Gates, Musk and others are doing.

I support companies and policy that work towards this long term solution

 

[chucky2]

It is funny to watch you flail.

LOL@Nick...if by flail you mean point out the solution is magical thinking, not even close to a solution that is workable, not funded, doesn't address 1st worlders blowing through a villages worth of CO2 budget, etc etc., sure, I'm flailing. Flailing Believers magical thinking that is...

Poor Nickie...

 

[chucky2]

Well I can't solve all the worlds problems in a post on AT P&N. Sorry.

Plus what you call magical is actually called bounding. I wanted to see if it was physically feasible to support the entire world at 1st world standard of living.

Well, congratulations, you've proved to us it isn't.

You seem to think it's an insurmountable problem. It's not it's just a very big problem.

No, I don't think it's insurmountable, at least from a technical sense, at all. Don't put words in my mouth. I just think you're never going to get 1st worlders to drastically scale back their standard of living enough to enable your Billions more 3rd worlders to live like 1st wordlers, that's all. You seem to think that because 1st worlders have reached maximum primary energy use (which doesn't account at all for their goods consumption or the countries we've offshored to making those goods), that you can use that number alone in making the case for all the 3rd worlders, plus Billions more, to move to 1st world status.

And obviously it requires more than just energy. It requires security, infrastructure and a lot more. I'm not the only one that feels this way. Look at what Gates, Musk and others are doing.

I support companies and policy that work towards this long term solution

Then you should work towards people trying to curb world population levels and getting 1st worlders to address their rampant lifestyles supported by shittons of CO2. Good luck with that though, New Yawkas want their steaks from Japan, CO2 cost be damned. Lifes a bitch for Believers I guess...

 

[Paratus]

Well, congratulations, you've proved to us it isn't.



No, I don't think it's insurmountable, at least from a technical sense, at all. Don't put words in my mouth. I just think you're never going to get 1st worlders to drastically scale back their standard of living enough to enable your Billions more 3rd worlders to live like 1st wordlers, that's all. You seem to think that because 1st worlders have reached maximum primary energy use (which doesn't account at all for their goods consumption or the countries we've offshored to making those goods), that you can use that number alone in making the case for all the 3rd worlders, plus Billions more, to move to 1st world status.



Then you should work towards people trying to curb world population levels and getting 1st worlders to address their rampant lifestyles supported by shittons of CO2. Good luck with that though, New Yawkas want their steaks from Japan, CO2 cost be damned. Lifes a bitch for Believers I guess...

Did you read anything wrote?

• The point was to reduce world population ethically.
• Poverty reduction should do that.
• 1st world standards of living would be maintained or increased
• 3rd world standards would be raised to to first
• At the end all power sources would be carbon neutral
• goods would effectively be carbon neutral because all the power to create them is.

I mean damn dude at this point it's like your arguing with somebody else.

 

[chucky2]

Did you read anything wrote?

• The point was to reduce world population ethically. But you're not reducing anything, you're growing it. It's like the budget the Pols "reduce". It's not that they actually reduce it, what they mean is they just grew it less massively than last year. Never is there an actual reduction.
• Poverty reduction should do that. Agreed, poverty reduction could largely contribute to less population increase, along with perhaps education and some bribing.
• 1st world standards of living would be maintained or increased Magically how? Because right now, first worlders are directly and indirectly causing massive amounts of pollution, and CO2 production. Automagically you're going to make steel production massively less CO2 producing? Massive increases in battery technology along with very large cost reductions? Concrete reductions? These are all hopes and dreams, not actual things that have or will necessarily occur. When they don't occur to the levels needed, and you get your Billions (with an s) more 1st worlders, what then? Ooops?
• 3rd world standards would be raised to to first Oh yes, that part we got. Ashni the goat herder will now account for 10x the CO2, not to mention other pollutants, that he used to. But no! Automagically, "tech advances" have completely eradicated made a 1st world lifestyle on par or even more automagically less so for CO2 production than today. Trust the Believers! This must be so!
• At the end all power sources would be carbon neutral MMM hmmm...sure they will. I mean, because, they will. How? Well, they will. Because Believer, that's why.
• goods would effectively be carbon neutral because all the power to create them is. Righto, I'm sure that'll happen. I mean, if there was a worldwide push to maybe get current Gen nuke in place everywhere solar (when it actually becomes a.) affordable and b.) the massive energy storage mediums needed become feasible) cannot work, along with where tidal won't/can't work, maybe that could happen. Of course, there's those pesky natural resources to contend with, to say nothing of the food demand (I guess we're all hoping artificial beef gets perfected...), but yeah, that'll happen. I mean, the UN is pushing for nukes everywhere right? How long will that effort take? 20, 30 years? Any day now...

I mean damn dude at this point it's like your arguing with somebody else.

Oh, we're not really arguing at all. You're Believing, and I'm I guess flailing (to use another Believers term for it) your beliefs in the hopes some sanity will prevail.

We're back to magically this will all happen, because, Magic!

 

[sandorski]

Oh, we're not really arguing at all. You're Believing, and I'm I guess flailing (to use another Believers term for it) your beliefs in the hopes some sanity will prevail.

We're back to magically this will all happen, because, Magic!

If Power Production becomes Carbon Neutral, there's nothing "magical" about having a First World society and extending it to the Third World.

 

[Paratus]

Oh, we're not really arguing at all. You're Believing, and I'm I guess flailing (to use another Believers term for it) your beliefs in the hopes some sanity will prevail.

We're back to magically this will all happen, because, Magic!

Let's go over all the places your missing what I've said.

I'm not saying this will happen. I'm saying this is what a possible solution can look like.

The assumption I made is doing nothing at best we hit the medium line of population growth and hit 10B in 2100. My assumption is raising standards of living brings us back down to 7B rescuing population by 3B or you can look at it as holding steady where we are at after peaking mid century.


Also it won't be your sheep herder living his entire life like a first worlder. It'll be his grandson or great grandson. We're talking 85 years and 3-4 generations. Your sheep herder gets a non-profit to put in a cement floor so he doesn't get worms and a micro loan for a drip irrigation systems and pedal powered well. The extra food and water means healthier family and livestock. His son can go to school for a longer. His grandson might just finish school.

Steel and especially aluminum produce a lot of CO2 from the POWER it takes to heat the raw materials to separate them. When that comes from nuclear, wind and solar no CO2.

Solar, wind, light water and breeder reactors aren't magic. They've actually been in production and use for literally decades. The only thing we need to avoid is coal. Even natural gas would be preferable at least for the first few decades of a transition.

 

[Subyman]

Deny global warming outright, then maybe accept global warming but humans play no role, maybe humans play a little role/maybe not but warming is good for us. What is next on the slope toward realization? Or will deniers extend their index finger and lip flap as the evidence piles?

At least some here are no longer denying climate change since it seems the arguments are moving toward a warmer climate being good for us as if a few more leaves on the trees and few more ears of corn per bushel will some how off set the massive migration of people as land recedes. The fact is, our current civilization has never undergone a change in climate. If I had to choose, I'd definitely not choose for the world's environment to change, so it being spun as a "good thing" is pretty dumb. Perturbations of large systems is usually very chaotic to the individual.

 

[PokerGuy]

haha, I see the true believers still clinging to their notion of salvation at the hands of politicians. Good stuff.

 

[bshole]

If I had to choose, I'd definitely not choose for the world's environment to change, so it being spun as a "good thing" is pretty dumb. Perturbations of large systems is usually very chaotic to the individual.

Something that has literally NEVER happened in the entire 4 billion plus history of the earth. It has always changed and it will always change. There is a reason that 99.99% of all all species that ever existed are now extinct..... constant environmental pressure that eliminates species unable to cope with change and giving rise to species that can.

The earth has ranged from no-ice caps at all to total glaciation of the globe.

 

[Subyman]

Something that has literally NEVER happened in the entire 4 billion plus history of the earth. It has always changed and it will always change. There is a reason that 99.99% of all all species that ever existed are now extinct..... constant environmental pressure that eliminates species unable to cope with change and giving rise to species that can.

The earth has ranged from no-ice caps at all to total glaciation of the globe.

That speaks to nothing. WE as a current civilization have never undergone a large shift that is magnified by the small time frame in which it is happening. There is really no telling how it will eventually affect us.

 

[fskimospy]

Something that has literally NEVER happened in the entire 4 billion plus history of the earth. It has always changed and it will always change. There is a reason that 99.99% of all all species that ever existed are now extinct..... constant environmental pressure that eliminates species unable to cope with change and giving rise to species that can.

The earth has ranged from no-ice caps at all to total glaciation of the globe.

That seems like a really good argument for trying to limit climate changes.