Paris Climate Talks Produce an Agreement

[fskimospy]

Do you think that a statistically-significant number of MMCC/MMGW deniers do not understand externalities?

I'd like to see Sarah Palin on a quiz program, with the host posing the question.

I don't think they care. They only care about preserving their belief that no action should be taken on climate change. The exact way they are able to get back to that comforting mental area seems to be of secondary concern.

 

[Accord99]

I consider the entire system of world trade and movement of people to be the "positive externality" of cheap and fast transporation enabled by oil. Regardless of whether it is a externality or a benefit, its value currently greatly exceeds its negative externalities and why it's so hard to stop using.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I consider the entire system of world trade and movement of people to be the "positive externality" of cheap and fast transporation enabled by oil. Regardless of whether it is a externality or a benefit, its value currently greatly exceeds its negative externalities and why it's so hard to stop using.

Call it a "benefit" of technology. Instead, what we're discussing is the conduct of simple business transactions and prices. External cost has been in the discussion since Love Canal.

I sell you "wonderful shee-it" which I make in my factory. My factory spews terrible shee-it into the air, which is "collective property." You breathe in the terrible shee-it, get asthma, go to the doctor, incur medical costs, die sooner. My factory should've captured the by-product of my wonderful shee-it and disposed of it at the cost to me, the factory owner.

Instead, I used your air for a cesspool or toilet. Until I'm compelled to "clean up my f-act-ory," the price of my wonderful shee-it will be lower. When I clean it up, I pass the cost on to you, but you agree to pay for it, since you're buying my wonderful shee-it as a matter of choice. And people who just don't like my wonderful shee-it don't have the cost of the pollution passed on to them in spite of their preferences.

 

[glenn1]

Call it a "benefit" of technology. Instead, what we're discussing is the conduct of simple business transactions and prices. External cost has been in the discussion since Love Canal.

I sell you "wonderful shee-it" which I make in my factory. My factory spews terrible shee-it into the air, which is "collective property." You breathe in the terrible shee-it, get asthma, go to the doctor, incur medical costs, die sooner. My factory should've captured the by-product of my wonderful shee-it and disposed of it at the cost to me, the factory owner.

Instead, I used your air for a cesspool or toilet. Until I'm compelled to "clean up my f-act-ory," the price of my wonderful shee-it will be lower. When I clean it up, I pass the cost on to you, but you agree to pay for it, since you're buying my wonderful shee-it as a matter of choice. And people who just don't like my wonderful shee-it don't have the cost of the pollution passed on to them in spite of their preferences.

Now let's describe it more accurately. Everyone owns a factory (their consumption) which generates "wonderful shee-it" as a byproduct. But in spite of the fact that you chose to build your factory on land below sea level, you don't reduce your production rates unless everyone else is forced to as well. Plus for some reason you expect the rest of us to pay extra so you can relocate your factory to a more favorable location.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Now let's describe it more accurately. Everyone owns a factory (their consumption) which generates "wonderful shee-it" as a byproduct. But in spite of the fact that you chose to build your factory on land below sea level, you don't reduce your production rates unless everyone else is forced to as well. Plus for some reason you expect the rest of us to pay extra so you can relocate your factory to a more favorable location.

You either lost me with that one, or you're trying to describe a prisoner's dilemma game among world players in the Paris agreement, while the water rises?

 

[glenn1]

You either lost me with that one, or you're trying to describe a prisoner's dilemma game among world players in the Paris agreement, while the water rises?

Prisoner's Dilemma is more akin to what the climate change side wants to describe it - if you don't allow us to impose a carbon tax we'll all die. Whereas even if we accept your version of the future it's not a prisoner's dilemma because our outcomes are vastly different. It's not a compelling argument when you're saying "if you don't allow us to implement a carbon tax then seaboard urbanites will die and you'll be mildly inconvenienced." Hard to use game theory when the choice outcomes are vastly more favorable for one player than the other.

 

[fskimospy]

Prisoner's Dilemma is more akin to what the climate change side wants to describe it - if you don't allow us to impose a carbon tax we'll all die. Whereas even if we accept your version of the future it's not a prisoner's dilemma because our outcomes are vastly different. It's not a compelling argument when you're saying "if you don't allow us to implement a carbon tax then seaboard urbanites will die and you'll be mildly inconvenienced." Hard to use game theory when the choice outcomes are vastly more favorable for one player than the other.

Today I learned that glenn believes that the loss of areas that comprise the majority of US GDP will only mildly inconvenience him.

You are either stupid or so overcome with rage and spite that you would rather hurt yourself than let the evil libruls be right. From your normal posting style I imagine it's the latter.

 

[JSt0rm]

Today I learned that glenn believes that the loss of areas that comprise the majority of US GDP will only mildly inconvenience him.

You are either stupid or so overcome with rage and spite that you would rather hurt yourself than let the evil libruls be right. From your normal posting style I imagine it's the latter.

he isnt hurting himself though. He will be dead soon. He is hurting his kids kids and everyone after that. Most people dont care about something so abstract.

 

[woolfe9998]

I don't think they care. They only care about preserving their belief that no action should be taken on climate change. The exact way they are able to get back to that comforting mental area seems to be of secondary concern.

Back in the day when I used to debate deniers of the Holocaust, if a document proving the existence of say, gas chambers, was presented, you'd first hear an argument like "those words aren't incriminating. Ausrottung doesn't mean 'exterminate' in every case." Then when that argument is debunked, it becomes, "the document is a forgery." When forensics are presented authenticating the document, then it's, "OK it's authentic, the words mean what you think it means, but when they wrote that they were just rattling sabers. They never meant to carry it out." Three different lines of reasoning, mutually exclusive with each other, all leading to the same conclusion.

As soon as you see people positing multiple, logically contradictory lines of reasoning to support the same conclusion, it's a red flag that you're dealing with an intellectually bankrupt belief system, one that is concerned only with achieving an ideologically driven end result and completely uninterested in what is true and what makes sense.

PS: No, I'm not comparing global warming deniers with Holocaust deniers on substantive belief, only on procedural reasoning.

 

[OverVolt]

Why do you think "Electric" has to mean batteries?

Catenary lines have provided power to long-distance trains for decades, and yes, they go uphill and over and through mountains.

Also; ever heard of Maglev?



.

Yes I have heard of Maglev and no Maglev or Catenary lines will never make financial sense in the midwest. They only operate in narrow highly traveled corridors. I know this and I live in the northeast where they have lots of Catenary lines, so why don't you? Of course as soon as you hit the less population dense areas of Virginia they ship ANR coal without them.

Stuff like this really shows how people have the wrong idea. Most of the country and its infrastructure crosses a large expanse. Do you honestly think Maglev would ever be in the Midwest?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Prisoner's Dilemma is more akin to what the climate change side wants to describe it - if you don't allow us to impose a carbon tax we'll all die. Whereas even if we accept your version of the future it's not a prisoner's dilemma because our outcomes are vastly different. It's not a compelling argument when you're saying "if you don't allow us to implement a carbon tax then seaboard urbanites will die and you'll be mildly inconvenienced." Hard to use game theory when the choice outcomes are vastly more favorable for one player than the other.

Even so, there's a lot more to it than coastal areas and sea-levels rising.

Anyway it looks as though others responded.

I think Eskimo made the point. It's not just about real-estate.

 

[Charmonium]

Yes I have heard of Maglev and no Maglev or Catenary lines will never make financial sense in the midwest. They only operate in narrow highly traveled corridors. I know this and I live in the northeast where they have lots of Catenary lines, so why don't you? Of course as soon as you hit the less population dense areas of Virginia they ship ANR coal without them.

Stuff like this really shows how people have the wrong idea. Most of the country and its infrastructure crosses a large expanse. Do you honestly think Maglev would ever be in the Midwest?

What's catenary? My first thought was half cat, half canary but turns out that it means the curve of a chain suspended from 2 fixed points. I'm guessing that you mean spur lines but I'm not sure.

 

[OverVolt]

What's catenary? My first thought was half cat, half canary but turns out that it means the curve of a chain suspended from 2 fixed points. I'm guessing that you mean spur lines but I'm not sure.

http://blog.amtrak.com/2014/01/catenary-wire/

You see them alot in the Northeast. And no a train making a 500mile crossing between towns is not going to be powered by any form of electric.

 

[Charmonium]

http://blog.amtrak.com/2014/01/catenary-wire/

You see them alot in the Northeast. And no a train making a 500mile crossing between towns is not going to be powered by any form of electric.

Ah. That explains the name. Cool.

I used to take the NE corridor line into the city. Did that for a few years and I don't think I ever heard that particular phrase, but it does make sense.

 

[Jhhnn]

http://blog.amtrak.com/2014/01/catenary-wire/

You see them alot in the Northeast. And no a train making a 500mile crossing between towns is not going to be powered by any form of electric.

Electric trains can go wherever the power lines let them.

Fossil fuels will ultimately become scarce. What then, Kimosabe?

Or does it not matter because we'll all be dead by then?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Electric trains can go wherever the power lines let them.

Fossil fuels will ultimately become scarce. What then, Kimosabe?

Or does it not matter because we'll all be dead by then?

Actually, I'd heard a lot of that last line from deniers. "I don't care -- I'll be dead!"

Which gets back to my analogy with the simple one-celled creatures on the petri dish. Swim, eat, poop. Swim, eat, poop. Swim, eat, gag, cough, poop. Paragon of Creation, ya see.

 

[mysticjbyrd]

Sounds great, but there's no penalty clause, which means it's mostly pr talk.