Besides, literally all institutions constantly jostle for money and influence. Maybe if climate scientists' arguments for more money sound better than lit professors its because, they're, you know, more persuasive?
roseweird posted:libelous_slander posted:so there is this movie called star trek i think ya'll should see, it might clear up this whole climate change fiasco
the eugenics wars are going to be much worse imo
wasnt ww2 arguably the eugenics war
roseweird posted:that reminds me, urban leftists hate acknowledging that in general rural libertarians are more ecologically knowledgeable and probably better environmental stewards than they will ever be
untrue, because they live in the city. lol
Ironicwarcriminal posted:an inconvenient truth
Now I’m going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States… And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you’ll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane’s eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it.
the actual inconvenient truth
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/08/sorry-global-warmists-but-extreme-weather-events-are-becoming-less-extreme
Hurricane inactivity is also setting all-time records. The United States is undergoing its longest stretch in recorded history without a major hurricane strike, with each passing day extending the unprecedented lack of severe hurricanes, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data.It has been more than 2,750 days since a major hurricane struck the United States. This easily smashes the prior record of less than 2,300 days between major hurricane strikes.
roseweird posted:that reminds me, urban leftists hate acknowledging that in general rural libertarians are more ecologically knowledgeable and probably better environmental stewards than they will ever be
finally we agree on something 
Superabound posted:lol if you think actual research scientists get paid millions
Superabound posted:lol if you think actual research scientists get paid millions
obviously i'm not saying they individually get paid millions, i'm saying the cartel gets millions
acephalousuniverse posted:
yeah my bad on posting that earlier. i was under the impression that New York had been hit by a pretty major hurricane recently but im watching this documentary and it turns out it was just something called a Cloverfield?? idk
roseweird posted:that reminds me, urban leftists hate acknowledging that in general rural libertarians are more ecologically knowledgeable and probably better environmental stewards than they will ever be
the childlike delight with which urban leftists discover what "subsistence farming" can mean for them
roseweird posted:Goethestein posted:global warming is definitely happening but i am skeptical about attempts to predict its effects with any degree of certainty especially when the most robust models predict at worst a perfectly survivable annoyance and there are thousands of lefties tearing at their clothes and begging to be judged at the bottom of an incan pyramid
now that 2012 is over i wonder what the next new age apocalyptic fetish will be
Your Grandchildren Will Live Under Communism
mustang19 posted:It would cost at least $1 trillion per year to properly mitigate global warming. The realistic death toll according to the UN and IPCC out to 2100 is about 15 million people. So that's $5 million per life saved.
Even if you're going to go full leftard and say the cost doesn't matter, consider that carbon taxes are a regressive tax that will mainly impact the working class, and the economic loss from mitigation would mean less revenue for government services and healthcare, probably killing more people than you were trying to save.
Additionally, the main killer from global warming was supposed to be increased malaria activity. We now know the original parameters were off and global warming is actually eradicating mosquitoes and destroying their native habitat. Because malaria is a major killer in Africa, global warming could easily save lives if this continues.
The "doomsday" global warming scenarios usually extrapolate trends out to hundreds of years beyond available fossil fuel reserves so they're not even feasible.
Global warming will still cause refugee problems, and wipe out a lot of tourist resorts, but you shouldn't automatically assume that any means are justified to reduce it. Only Zizek makes that argument.
im sure even solutions like "stop filling in wetlands and building giant housing developments there at exactly sealevel" are far too expensive in terms of lost profits for us socialists to consider,
im sure even solutions like "stop filling in wetlands and building giant housing developments there at exactly sealevel" are far too expensive in terms of lost profits for us socialists to consider,
I'm not saying do nothing about it. Just that complete mitigation is counterproductive to leftist goals.
Goethestein posted:lol what
rising sea levels is at the moment a nothing issue. sea levels have raised six inches in the last century. of course nobody cares. your problem is that you don't understand that people believe what they want to believe. the normal members of the species don't want to think that their homes and businesses will be wiped out by a disaster that is in effect a denunciation of their lifestyle. you want to see glorious punishment for hubris and capitalism and think that somehow those selfsame people won't lobby the government for levees when the tide starts licking. but there is no justice in this world. the rich countries will always have better resources to mitigate problems than poor countries. they have the capital and technology to build infrastructure. they exist in latitudes less likely to be crippled by temperature increases. they have the locations and military power to keep out refugees. will it be annoying? sure. deeply damaging to the economy? probably. but we'll survive at least this century with our governments in power and our major cities intact, while the rest of the world spasms and burns. that's the way it's always been, why would this be any different?
ok so as far as i can tell:
-global warming is not a problem because it hasnt happened much yet
-because many people are generally unwilling to address a certain problem due to their own myopic viewpoint it is not worth talking about or fighting
-i, personally, want people to die
-all ways and means throughout history are an unchanging monolith
let me know if i missed anything
mustang19 posted:im sure even solutions like "stop filling in wetlands and building giant housing developments there at exactly sealevel" are far too expensive in terms of lost profits for us socialists to consider,
I'm not saying do nothing about it. Just that complete mitigation is counterproductive to leftist goals.
"complete mitigation" is impossible, anyway
do you post all day every day?
"complete mitigation" is impossible, anyway
do you post all day every day?
Only when people respond!
If you want to come a reasonable mitigation position you have to do a lot of math and stuff to determine the social cost of carbon emissions like economists do, and it actually comes out to less than most of the existing carbon taxes.
Goethestein posted:people don't regard it as a problem because it hasn't happened much yet. Other than that yeah, p much
and there are lots of things most people dont regard as a problem, such as the many abuses of capitalism. we should still seek to educate regarding and ultimately someday address these issues
you want to come a reasonable mitigation position you have to do a lot of math and stuff to determine the social cost of carbon emissions like economists do, and it actually comes out to less than most of the existing carbon taxes.
youre still stuck on these "costs" and "taxes." there are plenty of things that can be done that only incur "costs" insofar as lost potential profits and property rights, such as zoning restrictions, outright restrictions on certain types of emissions, etc. a holistic compromise solution would be tenable in a unified socialist world state (lol) but instead many people will suffer greatly and nothing will be done. rising water levels are only a minor component of global warming. food and water insecurity will be exacerbated greatly for the world's poorest billions
youre still stuck on these "costs" and "taxes." there are plenty of things that can be done that only incur "costs" insofar as lost potential profits and property rights, such as zoning restrictions, outright restrictions on certain types of emissions, etc. a holistic compromise solution would be tenable in a unified socialist world state (lol) but instead many people will suffer greatly and nothing will be done. rising water levels are only a minor component of global warming. food and water insecurity will be exacerbated greatly for the world's poorest billions
That doesn't justify actually existing carbon taxes. The fact that they make food and energy prices significantly higher is an argument for lowering them.
When I said semi-decent, Stern Review type mitigation costs $1 trillion a year, that's a low estimate for the entire century. The mitigation cost grows with time and would be more like $7 trillion per year in 2050 and $50 trillion per year in 2100. At some point you just have to say "fuckit" and cut carbon taxes because they kill and impoverish far more people than they help.
how do taxes kill people
By worsening malnutrition, healthcare, and poverty. Because carbon taxes are a regressive tax and a form of fiscal austerity.
The money to fund carbon taxes steals bread from the mouths of the working class.
Edited by mustang19 ()
mustang19 posted:That doesn't justify actually existing carbon taxes. The fact that they make food and energy prices significantly higher is an argument for lowering them.
When I said semi-decent, Stern Review type mitigation costs $1 trillion a year, that's a low estimate for the entire century. The mitigation cost grows with time and would be more like $7 trillion per year in 2050 and $50 trillion per year in 2100. At some point you just have to say "fuckit" and cut carbon taxes because they kill and impoverish far more people than they help.
solution: government imposed price caps and exponentially confiscatory progressively tiered global tax increases directly on and as a percentage of the total profits of the company itself, instead of simple per-unit penalties than can easily be offloaded to the consumer. and of course by solution i mean "thing that will never happen"
solution: government imposed price caps and exponentially confiscatory progressively tiered global tax increases directly on and as a percentage of the total profits of the company itself, instead of simple per-unit penalties than can easily be offloaded to the consumer. and of course by solution i mean "thing that will never happen"
You really can't get around the major cost of global carbon taxes, which is the trillions in output lost from lower energy use.
That CBO thing is just the fiscal cost. The total economic cost is another two percentage points GDP. So implementing carbon taxes means one to two thousand dollars less for everyone in the US to buy food and healthcare with.
Edited by mustang19 ()
mustang19 posted:You really can't get around the major cost of global carbon taxes, which is the trillions in output lost from lower energy use.
That CBO thing is just the fiscal cost. The total economic cost is another two percentage points GDP. So implementing carbon taxes means one to two thousand dollars less for everyone in the US to buy food and healthcare with.
oh, well if were just making dumbshite free market economist arguments then uhh, two thousands dollars less for everyone in the US means less inflation which is better for everybody
Superabound posted:solution: government imposed price caps and exponentially confiscatory progressively tiered global tax increases directly on and as a percentage of the total profits of the company itself, instead of simple per-unit penalties than can easily be offloaded to the consumer. and of course by solution i mean "thing that will never happen"
That won't solve the problem of excess carbon emissions though because it won't disincentivize anything, it's just another tax. Get'cher head screwed back on son!
mustang19 posted:You really can't get around the major cost of global carbon taxes, which is the trillions in output lost from lower energy use.
That CBO thing is just the fiscal cost. The total economic cost is another two percentage points GDP. So implementing carbon taxes means one to two thousand dollars less for everyone in the US to buy food and healthcare with.
This is why carbon taxes don't really exist yet, but also why they should.
Everybody knows it's going to cost money to fix the climate. Nobody wants regressive taxes but Europe at least shows regressive taxation is not necessarily correlated with high income inequality or poverty. I dunno, would you prefer a cap and trade scheme? Somebody's still going to have to pay for all the windmills we need
Squalid posted:That won't solve the problem of excess carbon emissions though because it won't disincentivize anything, it's just another tax. Get'cher head screwed back on son!
thats because "disincentivization" is dumb free market bullshit
you do it for the confiscatory tax, and then use the tax to accelerate the development of non-carbon producing energy technolgies
Superabound posted:Squalid posted:That won't solve the problem of excess carbon emissions though because it won't disincentivize anything, it's just another tax. Get'cher head screwed back on son!
thats because "disincentivization" is dumb free market bullshit
you do it for the confiscatory tax, and then use the tax to accelerate the development of non-carbon producing energy technolgies
I have bad news for you buddy, but we live in a free market economy
Although the truth is many essential environmental problems can only be solved at the expense of the poor. For example Brazil would probably be better off ultimately if the entire Amazon was converted into cattle ranches and soy bean farms, and certainly today it is the smale scale slash and burn growers most directly effected by efforts to halt deforestation. But if we don't stop them everyone on the planet might die. Protecting the Amazon isn't negotiable, and the same issues apply throughout the tropics. Their are some existant schemes to reimburse tropical states for protecting forest but they certainly don't cover the whole cost of conservation.
mustang19alt posted:The point of carbon taxes and cap and trade is to limit emissions and consumption. As actually existing and proposed they do much more to worsen poverty than reduce it.
the problem is that youre not going to limit emissions by standing in front of the Progress failtrain and trying to push it back in the other direction. you have to accelerate it through and past the current dilemma until it comes out the other end of the tunnel. people need to stop seeing emissions taxes as a way to curb pollution through a reduction of consumption, but a way to generate an income for the development of non-polluting technologies, which will curb pollution through a reduction in reliance.