Global Warming. Is the hype coming to an end?

[Jeff Matthews]

 

Supply and demand is more than a concept within a game. It is a pricing mechanism as close to a scientific law as an economic law can be.

But, it's only useful in a game where the objective is profit extraction as the organizing principle. In other words "market economics."

I am saying that whole model is destructive.

 

 

It's so much the other way around, I don't know how this couldn't be clear.  It is  constructive, not destructive.  This market is what insures that people's efforts and resources are put to efficient use.  Managed economies often suffer greater from inefficiency.  China, for example, has constructed massive cities which are 100% vacant.  If the market was left to its own devices, this likely would not occur.

[OO1]

 

 

 

 

Money makers are usually dull and not very interesting to talk to.

"If you're so smart why ain't you rich?" is probably one of the dumbest statements of all time.

Dave

Exactly. Getting that rich requires a defect in the brain.

let's all hope that there will be more of these rich defects around as their money will pay the brains that do all the real work -

Historically, most of the great advances were made with no particular money incentive.

 

that is changing , the last  scientists I met were also very highly paid and fed and clothed and housed etc - nothing comes cheap anymore

[Mallette]

The responses indicate most feel things are going to simply go on as they have for the previous 5k years or so and don't seem to comprehend the complete change of everything in the 20th century or the constantly increasing speed of technological advance of the present.  I find it odd that so few seem to comprehend that the 20th century brought about changes completely miraculous and of no correspondence to anything in any timeline our science can comprehend. 

 

Everything is changing at rates accelerating so fast we are incapable of really processing it.   Our assumptions are almost certainly badly flawed as what is happening is not subject to anything we've known in the past. 

 

Dave

[OO1]

 

 

Are you saying the Montreal Protocol "fixed" the ozone problem?

- yes the real answer was the gradual elimination of the wide use of CFC's , they were the ozone problem and that is now however under control -

I think the CFC were replaced with HCFC. And the latest study reveals that HCFC is equally undesirable. The net might not be positive, and it might take 35 more years to know.

 

Beginning January 1, 2015: The Montreal Protocol requires the U.S. to reduce its consumption of HCFCs by 90% below the U.S. baseline.- that is raised to 99.5% by 2020 , production of R-22 ceases in 2020 with only recovered and recycled/reclaimed R-22will be allowed beyond 2020 to service existing systems  , with a 10 years system cycle - R 22 will be  phased out in the US BY 2030 -

[OO1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money makers are usually dull and not very interesting to talk to.

"If you're so smart why ain't you rich?" is probably one of the dumbest statements of all time.

Dave

Exactly. Getting that rich requires a defect in the brain.

let's all hope that there will be more of these rich defects around as their money will pay the brains that do all the real work -

Historically, most of the great advances were made with no particular money incentive.

Such as?

Atomic power.

 

The early studies of Einstein are confined in the USA and cost the taxpayer a lot of money

[angusruler]

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/02/11/congress-set-to-pass-bill-approving-keystone-xl-pipeline

 

 

 

 

 

it's aboot time!

[OO1]

 

 

And finally, yes it is a question of morality. It is wrong for 1/3 of population to be specifically held in the state of suffering when there is more than enough to go around. I hope that's not in dispute. But, if it is, I can explain the morality in an explicit example. It is wrong to deceive people, and yet, that deception is at the core of the game being played. Since that deception is central to the game, the game must be immoral.

Of course, deception is central to the game. Not just the game of financial transactions, either. "Do I look fat?" "Ummmm... No." Everything is a negotiation, and in so many cases, the art of negotiation involves not exposing weakness. This, naturally, means deception. Deception is permissible to a limited extent, according to the rules. There is, for example, a big difference between "puffery" and "fraud." One is legal; the other is not. Once you know and appreciate what "puffery" is, which is most certainly deception, you can have a much greater appreciation for why deception is part of the game. It is not to be abhorred. It is to be managed.

I don't want to manage immoral deception with rules. I want to move from immoral systems to moral systems.

You continue to argue within this system. Laws, puffery, regulations, management. I'm not trying for improvement in what already is wrong. Deception is not made right by renaming it puffery, and drawing lines in the wind.

socrates said it best - I know ,that I know nothing

[oldtimer]

Atomic power?  Going back in history, as you stipulated, every advance was mostly related to war at first.  War or more efficient food processing.  And it was always done for the profit of the inventor for the favor of the king or overlord.  I repeat my question to you regarding your statement that most historical advances were made without any particular money incentive.  Have you looked at Leonardo's inventions and what they were for and why?  So again, such as?  To separate the wheat from the chaff of course.

[OO1]

 

 

 

 

Are you saying the Montreal Protocol "fixed" the ozone problem?

- yes the real answer was the gradual elimination of the wide use of CFC's , they were the ozone problem and that is now however under control -

I think the CFC were replaced with HCFC. And the latest study reveals that HCFC is equally undesirable. The net might not be positive, and it might take 35 more years to know.

Beginning January 1, 2015: The Montreal Protocol requires the U.S. to reduce its consumption of HCFCs by 90% below the U.S. baseline.- that is raised to 99.5% by 2020 , production of R-22 ceases in 2020 with only recovered and recycled/reclaimed R-22will be allowed beyond 2020 to service existing systems , with a 10 years system cycle - R 22 will be phased out in the US BY 2030 -

Is the compliance voluntary or mandatory? Penalties?

 

definitely , the weak point of the accord

[OO1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Money makers are usually dull and not very interesting to talk to.

"If you're so smart why ain't you rich?" is probably one of the dumbest statements of all time.

Dave

Exactly. Getting that rich requires a defect in the brain.

let's all hope that there will be more of these rich defects around as their money will pay the brains that do all the real work -

Historically, most of the great advances were made with no particular money incentive.

Such as?

Atomic power.

The early studies of Einstein are confined in the USA and cost the taxpayer a lot of money

Was Einstein's goal to make money, like day Gates?

My comments were directed to people such as Buffet and Gates.

 

actually buffet is the odd one , money to him is a game like chess - a passtime -

[oldtimer]

Two possible responses come immediately to mind.  One is how many did you require previously?  Another is one for every one I can come up with, starting merely with Leonardo's inventions directly relating to war alone.  The first is knee jerk banter, the second has more substance.  I'll let you decide.  Or forget about it, I think I have made my point.  Of course I could be wrong.

[oldtimer]

 

 

 

 

Supply and demand is more than a concept within a game. It is a pricing mechanism as close to a scientific law as an economic law can be.

But, it's only useful in a game where the objective is profit extraction as the organizing principle. In other words "market economics."

I am saying that whole model is destructive.

I disagree. Resources are going to be distributed according to this principle regardless of system. Barter, etc. Peacefully speaking of course. Payment will be made in some form and price will reflect supply and demand.

How does the principle of supply and demand work at your local food bank?

Did you have an answer here, Old timer?

 

yes.  Surplus food ends up at the food bank.  The demand is there or there would not be a food bank.  The supply also is there as surplus food is donated.  The price is those who need it have to go there to get it, instead of a short walk to the 7-11.

Edited February 12, 2015 by oldtimer

[OO1]

 

 

 

 

 

Supply and demand is more than a concept within a game. It is a pricing mechanism as close to a scientific law as an economic law can be.

But, it's only useful in a game where the objective is profit extraction as the organizing principle. In other words "market economics."

I am saying that whole model is destructive.

I disagree. Resources are going to be distributed according to this principle regardless of system. Barter, etc. Peacefully speaking of course. Payment will be made in some form and price will reflect supply and demand.

How does the principle of supply and demand work at your local food bank?

Did you have an answer here, Old timer?

 

yes.  Surplus food ends up at the food bank.  The demand is there or there would not be a food bank.  The supply also is there as surplus food is donated.  The price is those who need it have to go there to get it, instead of a short walk to the 7-11.

 

and free of charge for the one out of the system

Edited February 12, 2015 by Randyh

[oldtimer]

It doesn't matter what the system is.  Roman empire, dark ages and Viking raids, feudalism, capitalism, and on.  Advances are made because the inventor wants to advance (profit).

[oldtimer]

Now who is locked into the current capitalist way of thinking?

[oldtimer]

The food is already paid for in the model you describe.  As surplus it is already zero.  There is still a price for those who want it because they have to go there and they have to choose from what is there. 

[oldtimer]

Where we seem to differ is the price.  You say it is zero.  Yes that's true in dollar terms for the consumer.  Maybe.  Unless they have to take the bus to get there.  But even their time to get there in any form is a price.  The other difference I see is your statement of the transaction needed to feed people is not relevant to how the food is procured.   Of course it is.  It is charity from those who have already purchased the food.  No donation equals no product.  It doesn't matter if there is enough food in the system to feed people.  if the distribution is not enabled, they get no food.  Just ask starving people in Africa or anywhere for that matter.

[oldtimer]

But you are negating the fact that food banks would not be possible without the overall supply demand curve.

[Travis In Austin]

dwi, good stuff. I appreciate your knowledge on the ozone problems from a few decades ago. Most Americans are not privy to the details of the science nor would most understand it. I know I wouldn't. So people like me rely on what we see and hear in the more mainstream formats. For example, high profile individuals such as Al Gore gives a speech and charges money for it. He gets to the speech in a private jet and gas guzzling SUV and then leaves the same way.  It is also fairly common knowledge that he has at least one very large home (mansion?) with a carbon footprint that far exceeds 95% of Americans' homes. I won't even speak about the rumors (because they are rumors) that he is either the owner or major shareholder in some sort of scheme (for lack of a better term) to profit from carbon credits.

 

As far as the scientists that support global warming. I'm torn. As you said, these studies are both privately and publicly funded. A scientists continued research and funding (including salary) in a given subject could be subject to the results of the studies he is commissioned to provide. I want to trust them.  I do. But it seems that the political minds are made up and therefore the science needs to fall in line with it or else.  Scientists aren't dumb (!) and no words are required when certain results are necessary to support the expectations. Therefore, we end up with 3,600 peer reviewed studies that say 'yup, global warming is man made.'

 

You said above that peer review means that something is science. Well 400 of those studies that are peer reviewed deny global warming is man made. So while a minority disagree, it indicates to me that this is still not completely settled. And until it is, I will continue to be skeptical. Probably because I have learned not to trust government. Or those that appear to be in a position to profit from promoting a position.

 

I don't know if you've read the whole thread or skimmed. So I will be brief so as not to repeat myself in case you already read it.  I have nothing against being a good steward of the Earth. I think we have no choice as humans because this is it, it's the only one we have and there isn't another for Trillions of miles, if at all.  So take care of what gives you life. What I am skeptical of is the idea that there are those that would enforce draconian measures on a populace for no other reason but for personal or political gain.  

 

You might say, "well either way someone is going to profit but we still need to do it."  And I suppose I would counter with DO WHAT? Mankind does not have a viable alternative energy source (except maybe nuclear) that we could fall back on without putting us back in the stone age.  And I don't know your political leanings but I can already tell you those on the left would fight tooth and nail against nuclear.

 

So what is the answer? How do we move forward as a species without hekilling the planet when a powerful segment of the population will not allow us to use the most advanced form of energy we have developed in order to do so? It seems as if we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Well said.

People like Al Gore are the problem from that side of the debate. They are great at rasing money for a documentary, but they can't walk the walk. They are like the folks you mentioned that say they don't want nuke but they don't want carbon. Unrealistic, you can't have it both ways. There are people on the other side of the debate, oil and coal, that do the same. Why MP was successful is they were able to identify problem, show risk and danger, and a reasonable solution over time to for business and consumers to adjust. What is way different about Ozone is we could see it. Firsy by ground detection, radio telescopes. People didn't believe it, said it could be a lot of things. Then we put a satellite up there to specifically look for hole. Low rez, took forever to download compared to now. They got those images in a report and it scared everybody. It took 20 years to get from the identification of the cause of the problem to signing on to a solution.

They have been seriously looking at global warming/cclimate change for over 20 years. They will never be able to take a photo, other than ice caps, that shows problem. All they can do is show graphs, and both sides can debate them.

There wasn't unanimity on ozone either, there rarely is in science. Einstein didn't agree with Newton on everthing, and Al was eventually proved right. The other thing aboutscience is that it is building blocks. They constantly say, upon each new discovery, that they have stood on the shoulders of giants to get to where they are.

I think it is other way on the science, the science becomes pretty well settled, and policy makers/legislators try and bend the science to their theory.

The surgeon general slapped warning labels on cigarettes in the 70s and there were legislators, from tobacco states, trying to argue that the science wasn't settled using studies funded by tobacco. They do what they are supposed to do, protect their constituents.

Oscarear can tell you how well settled the science was, there was no question. But when billions are involved you do whatever you can.

I agree we need to make this last. I do not see being able to colonize anytime before this next century, if ever. I guess we will see if we can get to Mars.

[Travis In Austin]

Are you saying the Montreal Protocol "fixed" the ozone problem?

- yes the real answer was the gradual elimination of the wide use of CFC's , they were the ozone problem and that is now however under control -

I think the CFC were replaced with HCFC. And the latest study reveals that HCFC is equally undesirable. The net might not be positive, and it might take 35 more years to know.

My understanding was that HCFCs were banned by an amendment but it turned out that they don't deplete ozone but they are a more potent green house gas, so last year's amendment was to get rid of similar chemicals beyond what wad previously banned.

But, I ain't no scientist. I just remember this from growing up in the middle of it and being a subscriber to Science and Scientific American. SA is not as technical. Science is the most prestigious peer reviewed journal in the United States, and I frequently misunderstand or cannot begin to comprehend articles therein.

To sum up, thousand points of light, stay the course, and the hole is smaller.