The Climate thread

[shnsajax 3,591]

Liberals would harass and yell at Jesus for his pet Raptor. 

Bullshit. We wouldn’t care as long as he had a cage and grain free diet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vein 114]

HEY HEY

HO HO

JESUS - LET THE RAPTOR GO

[berlinerbaer 670]

3 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Massive new federal study:  Climate change is real and it's going to be devastating:


https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/


 

 

On the other hand, some guy named "Vein" produced two photos of a bridge and proved that it's all a hoax, so I haven't made up my mind. 

 

This is a big deal. It is the first climate report to be released solely within the time of Trump's administration.

That it was released on Black Friday should tell you that Cheeto and company were worried about too much publicity. 

[Dahobbs 17,522]

2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Were you guys looking for this?

https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa-warns-long-cold-winter-could-hit-space-in-months-bringing-record-low-temperatures

 

Did you read what you linked? It confirms that solar minimums have little to do with climate and our temperatures on earth.

[Dahobbs 17,522]

1 hour ago, Vein said:

HEY HEY

HO HO

JESUS - LET THE RAPTOR GO

And you are just trolling so here is some neg. 

[Biff Tannen 45,664]

Every time someone starts this thread it always ends up the same.  3% of the posters here disagree, much like, apparently, 3% of scientists, and they are summarily dismissed, yet we continue the "argue" with them.  It's the ultimate troll set up thread.

[Vein 114]

15 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

And you are just trolling so here is some neg. 

You obviously take this board very seriously. 

[MissingInAction 25,005]

22 hours ago, Vein said:

"The Earth will do what it wants to do like it has for millions of years." - Vein

"Vein is a cock chugging ass monkey." - MIA

 

Hurrr duurrrr it's cold today , dose stewped libruls aint got no climactic changes. Dumb libturds. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by MissingInAction

[High Plains Drifter 11,026]

On 11/25/2018 at 1:15 PM, Vein said:

"The Earth will do what it wants to do like it has for millions of years." - Vein

Quoted for posterity.

 

This post is so amazingly stupid that anything you ever say about anything is suspect, and will be ignored. Congratulations, I guess?

 

[bolverk 29,652]

On 11/25/2018 at 11:52 AM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Massive new federal study:  Climate change is real and it's going to be devastating:


https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
 

 

Chapter 23 is all about the Southern Great Plains, which includes Texas. In summary: We're fucked.

Projected Increase in Number of Days Above 100ºF

[Drew 2,402]

I don't plan on being here in the late 21st, so it's all good.

[bolverk 29,652]

3 minutes ago, Drew said:

I don't plan on being here in the late 21st, so it's all good.

Do you plan on having kids or grandkids?

[Drew 2,402]

Nope.  So I'm in the free and clear.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,390]

Trump: I don't believe my own administration's science.

https://www.vox.com/2018/11/26/18112505/national-climate-assessment-2018-trump

[Incredulity 11,650]

I am willing to consider any and all climate change solutions, under the sole condition those solutions are not predicated by the creation of a massive unassigned revenue source such as a “carbon tax”.

[bolverk 29,652]

21 minutes ago, Drew said:

Nope.  So I'm in the free and clear.

Well, that sounds awfully selfish.

[bolverk 29,652]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I am willing to consider any and all climate change solutions, under the sole condition those solutions are not predicated by the creation of a massive unassigned revenue source such as a “carbon tax”.

What if it were assigned?

[Incredulity 11,650]

Just now, bolverk said:

What if it were assigned?

Feel free to share solutions tangible in scope and budget.

[Biff Tannen 45,664]

33 minutes ago, Drew said:

Nope.  So I'm in the free and clear.

Me neither.  I'm still not a dick.

[Dahobbs 17,522]

19 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

I am willing to consider any and all climate change solutions, under the sole condition those solutions are not predicated by the creation of a massive unassigned revenue source such as a “carbon tax”.

The main purpose of a carbon tax isn't revenue generation, but rather price internationalization. Climate change causes costs that, due to their nature, are external to any actor and thus do not get accounted for in the supply/demand curve. Economists like the idea of a carbon tax because it forces market participants to recognize these costs, allowing the market to properly price the goods and/or services. 

Personally, I'd assign all the revenue to either social services, NASA, or cancer research. But it doesn't really matter where you send the money; the goal of the tax is achieved by it simply existing.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Drew 2,402]

Geez, some people really gotta get their sarcasm meter checked.

[bolverk 29,652]

14 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Feel free to share solutions tangible in scope and budget.

You're going to be disappointed in the amount of detail I'm willing to go into over the next minute or so.

I'd "assign" the carbon tax revenue to investments in: 

1. non-carbon based energy production systems,
2. energy and water conservation efforts, and
3. our built environment to adapt to a hotter climate and an increased number of flood events.

[horn4life 3,759]

I just pray that one day the GOP as a party will embrace more factual information rather than nearly always believing the least likely, lowest percentage possiblity that aligns politically.  Sadly I think the GOP has given up long ago on fact based decision making.  It's all about division, blame and misinformation and promotion of outright lies.

The good news is it's gonna cost a fucking fortune!  Think of the USA as currently run by the GOP as a shitty HOA that doesn't plan for any cost in the future.  You know the complex is going to need painting but you insist that despite the paint fading substantially it's "still in perfect shape." The plan is ALWAYS the same, do nothing when in power but borrow, and do nothing but blame those that inherit the mess.  

Sadly politics have become a substitute for facts for the vast majority of the GOP.  It's gonna expensive when we start realizing we are about 6 inches too low in nearly all the older beachfront communities in the South and Southeast. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  The good news is... well about President is going to have to deal with Trump's many messes in two more years.  Won't help anyone really and history will be very unkind to continual disregarding fo facts by the GOP on this issue simply for political gain and no other reason.

[Incredulity 11,650]

50 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

The main purpose of a carbon tax isn't revenue generation, but rather price internationalization. Climate change causes costs that, due to their nature, are external to any actor and thus do not get accounted for in the supply/demand curve. Economists like the idea of a carbon tax because it forces market participants to recognize these costs, allowing the market to properly price the goods and/or services. 

Personally, I'd assign all the revenue to either social services, NASA, or cancer research. But it doesn't really matter where you send the money; the goal of the tax is achieved by it simply existing.

 

It absolutely does matter where you send the money.  Because guess what?  It’s never going to be enough.

Hard to believe anyone without a vested interest in the expansion of government bureaucracies could think it’s a solid idea to start this kind of nebulous revenue expansion.

[Incredulity 11,650]

44 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I just pray that one day the GOP as a party will embrace more factual information rather than nearly always believing the least likely, lowest percentage possiblity that aligns politically.  Sadly I think the GOP has given up long ago on fact based decision making.  It's all about division, blame and misinformation and promotion of outright lies.

The good news is it's gonna cost a fucking fortune!  Think of the USA as currently run by the GOP as a shitty HOA that doesn't plan for any cost in the future.  You know the complex is going to need painting but you insist that despite the paint fading substantially it's "still in perfect shape." The plan is ALWAYS the same, do nothing when in power but borrow, and do nothing but blame those that inherit the mess.  

Sadly politics have become a substitute for facts for the vast majority of the GOP.  It's gonna expensive when we start realizing we are about 6 inches too low in nearly all the older beachfront communities in the South and Southeast. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  The good news is... well about President is going to have to deal with Trump's many messes in two more years.  Won't help anyone really and history will be very unkind to continual disregarding fo facts by the GOP on this issue simply for political gain and no other reason.

Alright, you want to levee the entire southern US shoreline that’s tangible.  

 

[Dahobbs 17,522]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 

It absolutely does matter where you send the money.  Because guess what?  It’s never going to be enough.

Hard to believe anyone without a vested interest in the expansion of government bureaucracies could think it’s a solid idea to start this kind of nebulous revenue expansion.

Did you not read my post? The revenue doesn't matter. You could spend it on whatever you want or even burn it, it doesn't matter. The point of the tax isn't to generate revenue to combat climate change, the point of the tax is to allow the market to naturally handle climate change by internalizing the costs to market participants. It isn't about the money generated being "enough." It is about the tax forcing market participants to account for negative costs associated with climate change. The market gets to decide whether we really need the good/service despite the environmental impact. 

[Incredulity 11,650]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Did you not read my post? The revenue doesn't matter. You could spend it on whatever you want or even burn it, it doesn't matter. The point of the tax isn't to generate revenue to combat climate change, the point of the tax is to allow the market to naturally handle climate change by internalizing the costs to market participants. It isn't about the money generated being "enough." It is about the tax forcing market participants to account for negative costs associated with climate change. The market gets to decide whether we really need the good/service despite the environmental impact. 

If only it was as simple as that.

Beyond my disdain for a gigantic stream of money to fund untold layers of crony capitalism there is the entire carbon pricing scheme to be concerned about.  By what metrics do supply chains account for carbon? For example; Does the fuel used by a company to deliver a raw material get assigned to the seller or buyer?

 

[Dahobbs 17,522]

18 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

If only it was as simple as that.

Beyond my disdain for a gigantic stream of money to fund untold layers of crony capitalism there is the entire carbon pricing scheme to be concerned about.  By what metrics do supply chains account for carbon? For example; Does the fuel used by a company to deliver a raw material get assigned to the seller or buyer?

 

Economically, it doesn't matter who it is assigned to, it just needs to be assigned. The market takes care of the rest once the rule is in place. Here is some reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem

The metrics that determine the tax are a more interesting and complicated question, and not one I am able to analyze without doing a lot more research. Big picture I would expect an agency to be responsible l for developing a methodology. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Dahobbs

[Incredulity 11,650]

Yes, it does matter and Coase said  that.

Coase expressed frustration that his theorem was often misunderstood. Although some have used Coase's analysis to argue that because transaction costs are never zero it is always appropriate for a government to intervene and regulate, Coase believed that economists and politicians "tended to over-estimate the advantages which come from governmental regulation."^[1] Some mistakenly understood the theorem to mean that markets would always achieve efficient results when transaction costs were low, when in reality his point was almost the exact opposite: because transaction costs are never zero, it cannot be assumed that any institutional arrangement will necessarily be efficient. Therefore, Coase argued that it is important to always compare alternative institutional arrangements to see which would come closest to "the unattainable ideal of the (mythical) world of zero transaction costs."^[2]

[Dahobbs 17,522]

12 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Yes, it does matter and Coase said  that.

Coase expressed frustration that his theorem was often misunderstood. Although some have used Coase's analysis to argue that because transaction costs are never zero it is always appropriate for a government to intervene and regulate, Coase believed that economists and politicians "tended to over-estimate the advantages which come from governmental regulation."^[1] Some mistakenly understood the theorem to mean that markets would always achieve efficient results when transaction costs were low, when in reality his point was almost the exact opposite: because transaction costs are never zero, it cannot be assumed that any institutional arrangement will necessarily be efficient. Therefore, Coase argued that it is important to always compare alternative institutional arrangements to see which would come closest to "the unattainable ideal of the (mythical) world of zero transaction costs."^[2]

That doesn't deal with which participant is taxed. Under his theorem, it doesn't matter.

There is a separate question of whether intervention is desirable , and how that intervention should be handled. And Coase was saying that it depends on the particular circumstances. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Dahobbs

[swraith 345]

Chapter 23 is all about the Southern Great Plains, which includes Texas. In summary: We're fucked.

Projected Increase in Number of Days Above 100ºF

Houston gets off easy. Everybody else is truly fucked. I can’t see my kids/grandkids living in TX if that climate comes true.

[Incredulity 11,650]

4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

 , and how that intervention should be handled depends on the particular circumstances. That is what Coarse was saying. 

“How” is exactly what we are discussing 

It absolutely DOES matter how, because transaction costs are never zero.

[Dahobbs 17,522]

2 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

“How” is exactly what we are discussing 

It absolutely DOES matter how, because transaction costs are never zero.

I dont disagree. I think a carbon tax in this instance is beneficial. If you wanted to talk how best to implement one, we could do that. I was simply making 2 points: one, the purpose of the tax isn't revenue generation, and 2 that it doesn't matter which market participant is taxed. That is it. 

[High Plains Drifter 11,026]

5 hours ago, Incredulity said:

I am willing to consider any and all climate change solutions, under the sole condition those solutions are not predicated by the creation of a massive unassigned revenue source such as a “carbon tax”.

Why do you hate the free market?

[Dahobbs 17,522]

2 hours ago, Incredulity said:

“How” is exactly what we are discussing 

It absolutely DOES matter how, because transaction costs are never zero.

Also, if you absolutely need a use for the carbon tax revenue, here is an easy one: make it a tax credit that is divided per capita to individual filers. Again, it isn't important that the government get the revenue. All that is required is that the costs get internalized. So this solution does what is necessary to ensure a more efficient market, AND avoids your fear of government waste and expense. How does that sound?

[Incredulity 11,650]

27 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Also, if you absolutely need a use for the carbon tax revenue, here is an easy one: make it a tax credit that is divided per capita to individual filers. Again, it isn't important that the government get the revenue. All that is required is that the costs get internalized. So this solution does what is necessary to ensure a more efficient market, AND avoids your fear of government waste and expense. How does that sound?

Better.

But, I still would be very concerned about the elegance of carbon pricing and those costs being wielded as a political tool.

[Incredulity 11,650]

44 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Why do you hate the free market?

What I am concerned about is frankly the exact opposite of the free market.

[elfenix 34,223]

I don't know why you guys keep calling it a tax -- it's actually a user fee for disposing of greenhouses gasses into the commons. And user fees are definitely not a tax.

 

[LTbear 4,168]

On 11/25/2018 at 10:07 AM, Vein said:

Yeah, that website isn't biased at all and if you don't think scientists can't be biased then that's your problem. 

The Earth will do what it wants to do like it has for millions of years. 

You’d be a better off just admitting you have no idea what you’re talking about. That bridge photo is something the average middle schooler could tell you is an idiotic piece of “evidence” to consider, for half a dozen reasons.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,390]

10 hours ago, Theshining said:

Nobody debates "Global Warming" anymore. Boy I remember those Mop threads. 200+ pages of charts and graphs cut and pasted from "the blogosphere". Oh boy the pseudo science polemics of the avid arguer.

Now "I can haz great climate" vs "so ... how long does the human race have left?" is the sum total of the debate.

 

You remember the 200+ page Mop threads? You've been here since Sunday night.

[Zavala 1,384]

18 hours ago, bolverk said:

Chapter 23 is all about the Southern Great Plains, which includes Texas. In summary: We're fucked.

Projected Increase in Number of Days Above 100ºF

Good thing the Sun is headed toward a minimum and their models have never been accurate, at all. 

[Zavala 1,384]

10 hours ago, elfenix said:

I don't know why you guys keep calling it a tax -- it's actually a user fee for disposing of greenhouses gasses into the commons. And user fees are definitely not a tax.

 

So how is paying the government money is going to solve the issue?

[Biff Tannen 45,664]

15 minutes ago, Zavala said:

So how is paying the government money is going to solve the issue?

Know how I know you haven't been reading the thread?

[Dahobbs 17,522]

20 minutes ago, Zavala said:

Good thing the Sun is headed toward a minimum and their models have never been accurate, at all. 

Solar minimum has almost nothing to do with the temperature on Earth. It does affect the temperature in the upper atmosphere, impacting the radius of the atmosphere. This is mainly relevant because it can disrupt communications and keep space debris in orbit longer. Solar minimum and maximum are regular cycles of the sun and don't have any impact on our long-term climate.  See the posts above. 

Oh, and the models have been accurate, and most have actually underreported the change so far. 

19 minutes ago, Zavala said:

So how is paying the government money is going to solve the issue?

The point isn't to pay the government money. It is to cause market participants to internalize an external cost. Done correctly, a carbon tax (or rental fee) would increase the efficiency of the market and allow the supply/demand interaction to account for the negatives of climate change. Again, see my posts above. We could simply turn the revenue into a per capita deduction if you're concerned about the government wasting money. 

Edited November 27, 2018 by Dahobbs

[bolverk 29,652]

Zavala is just a drive-by poster asking questions (but not interested in listening to answers).

[High Plains Drifter 11,026]

13 hours ago, Incredulity said:

What I am concerned about is frankly the exact opposite of the free market.

Carbon "taxes" are frankly a very simple free market approach to limiting greenhouse gases.

[Zavala 1,384]

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Zavala is just a drive-by poster asking questions (but not interested in listening to answers).

not an answer

21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Solar minimum has almost nothing to do with the temperature on Earth. It does affect the temperature in the upper atmosphere, impacting the radius of the atmosphere. This is mainly relevant because it can disrupt communications and keep space debris in orbit longer. Solar minimum and maximum are regular cycles of the sun and don't have any impact on our long-term climate.  See the posts above. 

Oh, and the models have been accurate, and most have actually underreported the change so far. 

The point isn't to pay the government money. It is to cause market participants to internalize an external cost. Done correctly, a carbon tax (or rental fee) would increase the efficiency of the market and allow the supply/demand interaction to account for the negatives of climate change. Again, see my posts above. We could simply turn the revenue into a per capita deduction if you're concerned about the government wasting money. 

The cycles of the sun don't have anything to do with the temperature on Earth? What about other planets?

So corporations pay the government to rent carbon in the US, won't this just shift more companies overseas, where they are allowed to pollute like crazy? What are India and China doing about their massive amounts of pollution and cheating their own regulation standards? 

23 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Know how I know you haven't been reading the thread?

not an answer

[hayden_horn 11,362]

1 minute ago, Zavala said:

not an answer

The cycles of the sun don't have anything to do with the temperature on Earth? What about other planets?

So corporations pay the government to rent carbon in the US, won't this just shift more companies overseas, where they are allowed to pollute like crazy? What are India and China doing about their massive amounts of pollution and cheating their own regulation standards? 

not an answer

sure is a lot of questions, flip flop

[Mole 4,330]

17 hours ago, Incredulity said:

Alright, you want to levee the entire southern US shoreline that’s tangible.  

 

Maga. Build the sea wall.

[Zavala 1,384]

2 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Carbon "taxes" are frankly a very simple free market approach to limiting greenhouse gases.

The free market finds a way, all that fees and taxes and regulation in the US does is shift the production overseas where they have zero standards and end up polluting worse.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/indias-pollution-refugees-people-are-fleeing-delhi-because-of-the-smoggy-air/2018/11/15/26dc1250-e1f1-11e8-a1c9-6afe99dddd92_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.06e184ff334d

Quote

India’s pollution refugees: People are fleeing Delhi because of the toxic air

https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/chinese-officials-dump-chemicals-in-river-to-mask-pollution-118112100890_1.html

Quote

Officials in Weifang city in China's eastern Shandong Province have been caught throwing USD 6.8 million worth of chemicals into a river ahead of a government inspection to mask pollution problem, according to a state-run media report.