121–130 of 132 posts
Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same t…
I've got somewhat unorthodox views on global warming that might make for a good test of this: I fully accept that global warming is real, human-caused, and a major problem in the coming century. However, I don't believe we should limit carbon emissions. Instead, we should earmark all the money that would've gone into reducing carbon emissions (a carbon tax could be useful for this) into developing comprehensive evacu…
What does earmarking money into a rebuilding fund mean? Hoarding U.S. dollars in some account? There is no way to save in current U.S. dollars, ie green pieces of paper, in order to help deal with civilization level catastrophes in the future. You would have to save in terms of real goods. Saving in terms of dollars simply would result in deflation in the near term as you hoard, and inflation in the long-term when you dishoard in order to deal with the catastrophe. When the catastrophe comes, there is no difference between the government dishoarding dollars and the government printing dollars. The government has a printing press, there is no difference between taking the money (metaphorically) out of a hidden vault and between printing new dollars.
Now saving now in terms of hoarding real goods, or in building physical infrastructure, could work. But it's hard to imagine what kind of real goods would be useful in case of massive catastrophe. Most likely the wrong things would be built or hoarded. We're just too far away from the problem, and the government isn't good at making those kinds of calculations. Also, it may not be that necessary. People underestimate how much more valuable flows are than stocks. When cities have been destroyed by fire or bombing, they get rebuilt remarkably quickly, as long as the human capital is still there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The study (and the article) took pains to point out that what they observed is a universal phenomenon, as evidenced by liberals dismissing concerns about rising crime if the solution meant more guns and conservatives dismissing climate science if it meant more taxes.
A few discrepancies (maybe the actual paper clears these up if anyone has a copy): - The global warming part is discussed in much more detail (i.e. actual percentages, the statement that Democrats didn't show different behavior). - Measuring the total number of violent break-ins is way easier than measuring humanity's impact on global temperatures, the available data regarding the former is a lot simpler to logically…
That's a false comparison. Counting the number of violent break-ins is harder than measuring the increase in global temperatures, which is the fair metric to compare against. Instead of just setting up a bunch of thermometers and averaging the results, you have to settle on a definition of violent and comb through police statistics (to get the number of reported break-ins) and surveys (to get the number of unreported break-ins).
> I'm not aware of any politically significant faction on the left claiming that violent crimes are not increasing
The point of the paper is that when the proposed solution to a reported increase in violent crimes involved a policy liberals would object to, such a faction began to emerge. Whether violent crimes are actually increasing and whether liberals are currently denying said increase are both irrelevant.
The actual paper is linked to from the article posted. I only did a cursory read and didn't find it to be dripping with bias, but that's just my opinion. Here's a direct link to the paper: http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/9256
Time to spend some karma. Literature like this makes me happy, because it is further evidence that the alarmists have very little material left. Mercifully we may have hit the high-water mark of this generation of misanthropic environmentalist nonsense and can now enjoy several decades of joking about it. The "Recursive Fury" paper[0] was probably the actual high-water mark, and this looks like pretty much the same t…
No, you are wrong. You are clearly posting out of ignorance. The earth climate system is not impossibly complex. The global temperature is at it's core determined by an energy balance. Visible light from the sun enters, infrared radiation leaves. Some of that infrared radiation is blocked, then temperature has to rise before the balance is restored. Simple as that, and completely uncontroversial, because proven by sp…
This seems to me a form of calling names, which the HN guidelines ask you not to do. Instead of telling someone that they are ignorant, it's more civil and substantive to simply post better information. They may or may not become less ignorant, but everyone else can learn something.
I am curious if this is hurt by people denying[1] the pain a solution would cause. A massive shift away from petrocarbon exploration would cause a great deal of unemployment (and consequently suicide, domestic violence, etc) in areas like Houston. [1] http://m.imgur.com/r/energy/up6yu
And probably a great deal of employment in [location where alternatives are produced]. Nothing deserves forever, and survival of civilization in the modern world depends on adaptation, not holding fast.
Apparently that location is ... Texas.
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/09/tex...
"Second, Texas has way more wind power than any other state. In 2014, wind accounted for 4.4 percent of electricity produced in the United States. Texas, which has more installed wind capacity (15,635 megawatts) than any other state and is home to nearly 10,000 turbines, got 9 percent of its electricity from wind in 2014."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And probably a great deal of employment in [location where alternatives are produced]. Nothing deserves forever, and survival of civilization in the modern world depends on adaptation, not holding fast.
> And probably a great deal of employment in [location where alternatives are produced]. Apparently that location is ... Texas. http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2015/09/tex... "Second, Texas has way more wind power than any other state. In 2014, wind accounted for 4.4 percent of electricity produced in the United States. Texas, which has more installed wind capacity (15,635 megawatts) than any other s…
I've got somewhat unorthodox views on global warming that might make for a good test of this: I fully accept that global warming is real, human-caused, and a major problem in the coming century. However, I don't believe we should limit carbon emissions. Instead, we should earmark all the money that would've gone into reducing carbon emissions (a carbon tax could be useful for this) into developing comprehensive evacu…
> Instead, we should earmark all the money that would've gone into reducing carbon emissions (a carbon tax could be useful for this) into developing comprehensive evacuation plans for every major city, as well as a fund for rebuilding. What does earmarking money into a rebuilding fund mean? Hoarding U.S. dollars in some account? There is no way to save in current U.S. dollars, ie green pieces of paper, in order to he…
But let's deliver the GP's idea a final blow: The thing you could potentially save would be cheap energy, for example in the form of carbon-based fuels. Which is incidentally what proponents of carbon-neutral energy sources are advocating, by wanting to leave them in the ground.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Norway is hardly comparable to EU energy wise, mainly because they biggest energy production is hydro, which in turn comes from unique geography. Germany little experiment with solar is already causing massive issues, ecology wise too. Factories are already saying fuck it, building their own local generators, with worse exhaust and lower efficiency. Keep adding more nonsense costs to industry in EU. And you know what…
Norway is not comparable to mainland EU, I'm not claiming that. But Norway does have an intensive oil and gas industry which emits copious amount of CO2. Because of the CO2 tax, they have implemented the worlds first (and only) commercial carbon-capture and storage (CCS) project ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleipner_gas_field#Carbon_capt... ). As for China stealing European industry, that's happening already, and…
Also, Norway is just bad example, since they were literally rolling in cash. And, if most of your energy comes from hydro, a little feelgood CCS wont drive the price through the roof. Now, if you look at EU, it's mostly fossil fired or nukes. Close the nukes and force CCS on the rest - insane power costs
And don't give me solar, Germany is finding how it is failing. (Because every other day the energy prices go negative and wind/solar has right of way actual power plants go bankrupt. This in no way means they are unneeded,just that the law is broken)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Instead, we should earmark all the money that would've gone into reducing carbon emissions (a carbon tax could be useful for this) into developing comprehensive evacuation plans for every major city, as well as a fund for rebuilding. What does earmarking money into a rebuilding fund mean? Hoarding U.S. dollars in some account? There is no way to save in current U.S. dollars, ie green pieces of paper, in order to he…
I normally don't vote in threads I comment in, but in your case I just had to upvote. Too many people don't understand that you cannot really "save" money. But let's deliver the GP's idea a final blow: The thing you could potentially save would be cheap energy, for example in the form of carbon-based fuels. Which is incidentally what proponents of carbon-neutral energy sources are advocating, by wanting to leave them…
But I do understand the idea, and I'll go one further. The purpose of "money" is a form of claim check on the labor of other people, one that can be spent according to the preferences of each individual. When I say "save up to fund the inevitable devastation", I mean "it is probably more efficient to redirect the labor of people into fixing the problem after it happens than it is to invest it in changing production processes to speculatively prevent it from happening." I propose one possibility for this in a sibling thread: a carbon tax used to fund an insurance subsidy and additional federal disaster planning and possible infrastructure improvements. The financial & insurance industry can handle the administration; this is after all what the financial industry is for, arranging for a store of these "claim checks" so that you still have a claim on them in the future and yet they can be used for productive work in the meantime.
The government's only role here is to rectify an externality. Carbon emissions are causing harm to people not party to their production, so redistribute this back into the economy at the point that's being harmed, and let the market do the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not seeing the connection...?
My guess: As a problem that I feel threatened by becomes a greater target for action by society, the solutions enacted by society feel like an unnecessary imposition on me--since I don't believe the problem to be real--and the (potentially) building consensus around that problem makes me feel as more of an outsider. Not feeling like a part of a society's approach to that issue may lead me to withdraw from that societ…
Huh. I'm finding myself experiencing this in a range of issues in recent years.