Topic: Economic Devastation - page 146. (Read 504811 times)

In response to Mint directly,

Your first link was nothing more then a Google search for 'Global warming Hoax', If you have specific sources you want me to read link them but I am not going to trawl through a goggle search doing your work for you.

You then made reference to the well know 'petition' with so many thousands of PhD's and such, I presume you are referring to the infamous 'Oregon Petition' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition a well documented piece of total Bullshit as at best something like ~100 people (signatories are nearly impossible to verify) had any expertise in Climate science, not to mention it is now decades out of date.

Lastly why you would dredge up on older Thread now is rather odd.  It is sounding to me like an attempt to imply that I am unreasonably 'challenging' you.  In that thread you clearly did make several errors that I corrected, and then when I misunderstood one of your points I admitted it forthrightly.  I see nothing their that impinges upon me as an honest debater.

I never denied falsifiability as a basis for science, I am fully in agreement with Karl Popper as blax4 describes it.  As a theory AGW clearly passes the test of falsifiability being a theory about a very real physical object with measurable physical properties, we test it ever day as we observe the warming trend and observe the Climates interaction with Carbon-Dioxide that we know is man-made.

But remember Popper when describing falsifiability makes it a condition for us to call a theory scientific, he dose not call on us to REJECT every theory that HAS been falsified.  Simply finding 1 incorrect prediction dose not cause us to throw out an entire theory as garbage and revert to a state of theoretical agnosticism.  Every theory will have it's bumps and wart and will and should be challenged with falsification attempts, if a new theory comes along which can explain the warts on the old theory it rapidly becomes the consensus.  The normal course of science is to have two theories which each fail and succeed in some major way until some new observation definitively puts one theory in the lead but the lead theory will usually still have warts.  The participial-wave problem in quantum-mechanics is a classic example, the current 'duality' is just a kind of scientific truce waiting for a better theory, so while we KNOW that particle and wave descriptions are wrong we do not throw up our hands and say we know nothing, we work with what we have.

Mint might be confusing 'experiment' with 'controlled and repeatable laboratory experiment' which is understandable, we can not do a laboratory experiment on the Earths climate as their is only one in existence and it's being used.  Climate Science is much like Astronomy in this sense, we can't put the heavens into a test tube and run repeatable experiments on it, but in both cases we can make OBSERVATIONS, and it is observation that provides falsification, laboratory experiments are just one (highly trustworthy) form of observation but inability to experiment dose not rule out a field as science.

Mint might also have meant that AGW is unfalsifiable due to his belief that their is some cabal of socialists which are preventing this falsification from being communicated to scientists or from scientists to the public.  This is richly Ironic because their is nothing LESS falsifiable then this kind of conspiratorial thinking, how could we prove that no sinister shadowy group of people are not pulling all the strings behind the scenes.  In the milder form of this argument you might say that is it just institutional dogma and inertia among climate scientists that prevents the recognition of failed predictions and the acceptance of some better theory.  This is about equivalent to what I believe is happening around the Big-Bang, the theory is held up as 'solid' when in fact is has lots of failed predictions.  But their is no remotely solid counter-theory for the BB so even I can't claim that anyone is 'wrong' to believe the BB, simply that confidence is too high and the search for and respect for alternatives is too low.

Where did I do that? I even stated 33,000 scientists and 9,000+ PhD's signed a petition against AGW. I am dismissing those who want to piecemeal together model fitting to make a larger claim of AGW, which is unfalsifiable. That is what we 33,000 are saying. We are academics. Define academic? You mean I have to be in back pocket of a university to qualify? You do know that the student loan debt is a horrific problem facing us. University employed and grant funded academics are in the back pocket of the socialism.

---

Impaler similarly challenged me in another post as follows. Let's see if he can justify as logically as I did in response to his challenge.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3813768

---

Signal looks like noise to those who don't understand.

So where is this detailed and comprehensive risk assessment?
I would want to see one both comprehensive evaluating all costs (to the best of human ability) of AGW as well as the benefits of AGW for cold areas of the globe. It should also model the effects of waiting to address this issue for 10,20,50 years and then dealing with it.

If it does not exist why are we taxing global industry via Kyoto Protocol in the absence of compelling data?

Also I would argue that choice #1 as presented above downplays the seriousness of attempting to regulate/reduce all human greenhouse emissions. This is a guaranteed drag on the world economy at a time when the world economy is already pretty sickly.


AnonyMint I greatly respect your intellect (I started this post to explore your ideas after all). Noise, however, while very provocative and often amusing is nevertheless fundamentally just noise.

This is not a moderated thread and thus all parties are free to post anything they want. However, as noise tends to lower the overall quality of the conversation I do kindly ask all parties try and keep it to a minimum.

I agree you make some points but its hard to take you seriously when you offhandedly dismiss the entire academic community as disingenuous.

Describe an experiment where I could even have the opportunity to definitively proven that AGW is false.

Nonsense. This is not science. It is religion and politics.

You all are insane.

Hey you myopic dimwits:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5146060

Note the mining difficulty does not have to correlate with volume of transactions, so transactions could increase to VISA scale and the electricity consumed by mining need not increase.

If Bitcoin's mining was funded from a perpetual, consistent (small, reasonable) annual debasement (or Impaler's Freicoin demurrage), instead of transaction fees, then funding for mining would scale with market cap and not with transaction volume.

At this time Bitcoin's declining coin rewards are still 11.5% per annum plus transaction fees are tacked on, thus apparently you claim we are spending $15 x 365 = $5.5 billion per annum for a $10 billion market cap, i.e roughly 55%. Are you sure your figure is correct? Are transaction fees really that large? Are miners operating at a loss?

Edit:

That article explains that the $15 million estimate is nonsense. Mining is now dominated by ASICs which are 100x more power efficient. Thus you are looking at $15 million every 100 days, not every day.

Dimwits shouldn't be allowed to vote, but a democracy can't work that way, and thus it doesn't work.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/03/fascinating-number-bitcoin-mining-uses-15-millions-worth-of-electricity-every-day/
http://coinmarketcap.com/

is $15 Million of electricity per day, for $24 Million daily trade volume really the best we can do? 

Impaler you have disappointed me. I can't fathom how you can deny that falsifiability is required by the scientific method. AGW can't be falsified. If it is impossible to prove that something is false, then it is also impossible to prove it is true. AGW is masturbation.

I no longer view you as a rational and sane person.


How ironic that he required a political Union of Egoists in order to accomplish his goals to end politics.

Climate literature doesn't attempt to answer question A because that is the realm of expertise of Agronomists and Engineers.  The climate science can tell us things like the frequency and severity of droughts, floods and storms (all increasing).  Agronomists would translate that change into crop yield changes and Engineers could translate it into storm damage amounts, they could also tell us if their are benefits that balance these costs.

Question B is a bit ironic because 'dealing with it later' WAS the choice made in the 70's our NOW was their Future, largely they made investments in new forms of energy and made some token energy-efficiency improvements.  While more could have been done I think it is fairly obvious in hindsight that at that time carbon-free energy sources (excluding Nuclear) were simply not cheap enough to solve the problem cost-effectively, so the choice to delay direct action and instead invest in technology was correct in the past.  

The question now is, is now the time to put the tech into practice, naturally tech will get better in the future and we could delay action indefinitely if this were our only metric to judge by.  I think a credible case can now be made that acting now will ultimately be less costly, but this is certainly a weaker case then the case for APGW as a scientific conclusion.  A broad economic cost-benefit analysis is more complex then climate science, as it by nature includes all the climate science in it along with a lot of additional thinking that is economic and speculation on roll-out and replacement costs of infrastructure.  

It is perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of that wider analysis because engineers are routinely wrong by BIG amounts when estimating costs for NORMAL things like a mere road, and with rapidly advancing technology they are likely to be very wrong, and could be wrong on either the high or the low side.  We also have to consider that nearly all these engineers are working for someone who wants to sell energy, either carbon based or carbon free, and they all have financial incentives to exaggerate because no matter what happens their is going to be a LOT of money expended in the purchase of Energy in the future.  

So long as we are having an honest debate in a cost-benefit frame work rather then throwing around crank accusations of fraud, conspiracy and the like that are so obviously motivated by the clash between a global problem and an anti-authoritarian belief systems.  In the past when people with anti-authoritarian views have come to the table with solid response ideas like carbon-taxation which would allow markets maximum freedom to find a lowest cost solution these ideas have been wholeheartedly embraced by the environmentalist side of the debate so their is a history of prudence that can and should be built upon.

Egoist Anarchist do.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism

Like the fringe environmentalists advocating massive culling of the population every movement has its fair share of crazies.

Of course. The AGW deniers are not proposing such insanity. Who is?

Religion. Thus AGW = religion. Neither can be falsified.

Agreed.

Similarly if a theory or philosophy requires that we eliminate all top-down imposed constraints on human behavior, then we know:

• It is facetious because the the removal of all top-down "authority" can't be accomplished.
• Thus it must be a wolf in sheepskin.
• It is insane.

 

The litmus test is if a theory or philosophy requires that we top-down control the human race, then we know:

• It is facetious because the top-down "fix" can't be accomplished.
• Thus it must be a wolf in sheepskin.
• It is insane.

Facts on the AGW fraud:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:esr.ibiblio.org+AGW

---

See my link above for refutation.


Bullshit. There were 33,000 scientists and 9,000+ PhDs that signed a petition disagreeing. The media and the academic community is in the backpocket of the socialism at this point.

It doesn't make accurate predictions. They cherry pick models (and data) to fit what ever they want the data to say. If you know anything about modeling, math, and statistics, you wouldn't make such a stupid assertion.


Bullshit again. You can believe what ever you want to believe I guess.


No we just ignore their insane junk science.

That "burden of proof" argument was refuted in the thread where the following comment originates. Essentially AGW can't be falsified-- a fundamental requirement of the scientific method.

We have shown that some top down imposed order can never be completely eliminated. Some constraint is needed on any dynamic system (in this case human society).

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4897280

We also agree the socialism is likely to overshoot before stabilizing in it's proper diminishing role.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.4941493

I think you are picking the wrong fight in going to battle against conservationism.
The areas conservationist focus on managing public use goods such as fisheries, wildlife management (sustainable hunting), water, soil conservation and sustainable forestry (on public lands) are the areas most likely to need some top down management for the immediate future. The free market has not yet developed robust ways to deal with these problems.

The risks above (e.g. megadeath, culling the population, taxing above the Laffer limit, etc) result from across the board growth of collectivism to unsustainable levels leading to potential systemic collapse (a transition into an unbounded dynamic system).

The solution is not to attack every instance of socialism (as some are needed), but to find a way to limit socialism so that it cannot grow to the point where that growth threatens the entire system. Small localized Coasian barriers are not problematic as these can be gradually unwound once a free market solution is developed. It is systemic instability that is the true danger.

Environmentalism especially on its fringes has some wacky ideas. These folks are much more deserving of scorn. However, even here there is the potential for common ground. Many environmentalist advocate sustainability above all else. I suspect if they understood the economic ideas discussed up-thread some would be supportive.  


I will be honest that in this area I am a complete lay person. I have not read any of the leaked e-mails in question nor have I read any of the primary literature.

Has the climate literature made a convincing case that

A) The economic costs of warming exceed the benefits. (Lots of cold areas that will benefit from a little warming)
B) We should tackle this now instead of in the future. (Technology will be much better in the future and the costs to reduce human impact less burdensome)

If the answer is yes I will have to educate myself further and consider revising my undecided stance. If not the point is somewhat moot so I probably won't bother.

 


 
 

Mint your really sounding like a crank now, the supposed incriminating e-mail's show no such thing and it takes intentional intellectual dishonesty to perceive them that way.

Cube's argument that anthropogenic global-warming may be turning into a dogma among climate scientists has a point, and it would be unhealthy for it to be so as any dogma in science would be.  But this is not sufficient reason for a lay person to become 'undecided' as if this were a coin-flip issue, a theory becomes scientific dogma  because it has won in the scientific debate at some point in the past, a debate that was won without the benefit of being the existing dogma.  We should doubt the Dogma when it starts failing to make accurate predictions, or if the evidence that was the original deciding factor comes into doubt, but neither of these things has occurred.  

What CC references is an alternative explanation involving the Sun, the Sun has not been recently discovered and scientists rejected it as an explanation decades ago before any dogma was established and before the whole issue became so politicized.  The burden of proof is on opponents of APGW to both disprove APGW AND provide a better theory that predicts things that APGW fails to predict accurately.  But until their are serious incorrect predictions in current theory no Lay Person would be justified in having more then the barest of skepticism.

A good example of a scientific dogma that people SHOULD be in doubt of is the Big-Bang, the theory has failed numerous times to predict our next set of telescopic observations, each failure has resulted in another 'patch' addition to the theory such as inflation, dark-matter, and most recently dark-energy.  Yet the dogma is strongly enforced because of career inertia, the control of the paper-review process and even the allocation of the limited telescope observation time such that one really can't have a job as an astronomer without upholding the dogma.  But even with these failures the proper mood should be Doubt on the part of Lay Persons, not disbelief or rejection, a core set of observations DO still match the theory and no better alternative theory has been proposed.

Occam's Razor applies.

AGW is proven fraud. We even hacked their emails and caught them admitting they were modifying temperature data, cherry picking models to fit their desired projections, and moving thermometers from shady grassland to concreted areas in direct sunlight. Please don't expect us to reprove every time they relaunch their junk science again.

Energy is always conserved. Erecting Coasian barriers just causes a bottleneck and then the rush back to catch up with the external entropy means abrupt adjustment (e.g. megadeath, culling the population, taxing above the Laffer limit, etc).

No one can top-down manage the trend to maximum entropy.

I wish these self-important, do-gooders would understand the harm they do. George Carlin was spot on. His modern man rap is cool.

I associate with the economic theory discussed in this thread which calls for anarchism in balance with and constrained by socialism.  I believe it is this combination in optimal/neutral equilibrium that is needed to achieve maximal progress and prosperity.

Anarchism limits socialism <--> Socialism constrains anarchism


Lacking a better term I am calling it neutralism for now. I suppose that would make me a neutralist.

Be careful now.

You are sounding like Barry Goldwater, who was a TRUE conservative!

My $.02.