The World Just Hit This Disturbing Climate Change Metric

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,482
13,331
287
Hooterville, Vir.
A lot of people egotistically believe that their expertise in a particular technical field, such as chemical engineering or geology, qualifies them as experts in other fields, such as economics or climate science.
Another example, is his adamant recommendation that the US should build a magnetic levitation train from NY to LA, a little shy of 3,000 miles.
MagLev track will cost $50-200 million per mile. That's about $150 billion - $600 billion. Once it is built, who would use it? How much would fares have to be to pay off that debt and operate the line at a profit?
His response? It is technologically feasible, so it should be done.
If I wanted to make sheet plastics (his field), I'd still seek his advice.
Making economic decisions? Not so much.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,314
45,172
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
A lot of people egotistically believe that their expertise in a particular technical field, such as chemical engineering or geology, qualifies them as experts in other fields, such as economics or climate science.
a lot of actual economists think that a carbon tax of some form may be beneficial in mitigating climate change.

here is a [somewhat dated] piece from tyler cowen talking about it (as well some of the challenges of actually implementing it)

and here is a more recent piece by scott sumner.

I seem to be one of the relatively few right-of-center intellectuals that worry about global warming. In previous posts I've argued that if the GOP were smart (no jokes please) they would propose the following policy:

1. Global warming is a crisis for our planet, and it's time to stop playing politics with the issue. Therefore we suggest that Congress pass the sort of policy that experts believe is the most effective solution, without any bells and whistles that address other partisan concerns.

2. It's clear that experts view a carbon tax as the most efficient solution.

3. This tax should be completely revenue neutral, and should not be viewed as a back door way to advance other agendas, such as bigger government and more spending.

4. Therefore the carbon tax should be offset by reductions in our most distortionary taxes, especially those that bias us toward consumption. A revenue neutral carbon tax focuses like a laser on the environmental problem, and doesn't get bogged down in left-right disputes over the proper size of government.
 
Last edited:

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
a lot of actual economists think that a carbon tax of some form may be beneficial in mitigating climate change.

here is a [somewhat dated] piece from tyler cowen talking about it (as well some of the challenges of actually implementing it)

and here is a more recent piece by scott sumner.
Bless his quixotic heart...
 

cuda.1973

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
8,506
607
137
Allen, Texas
A bit o/t, but since no one else brought this one up....................

Global warming is killing off the coffee trees!

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nk-climate-change-panic-behind-coffee-fungus/

Well, no................but why let a good panic go to waste?

"This ought to get those heretics to believe our lies, uh, I mean our 'science'. Probably all are voting for Drumpf, anyway. What a basket of deplorables."
 

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,905
35,280
362
Mountainous Northern California
Pretty much coincides with what many of us who are called "deniers" and other pejoratives have been saying.

https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/25/energy-poverty-is-much-worse-for-the-poo

Energy Poverty Is Much Worse for the Poor Than Climate Change

Forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is 'morally dubious'


But what about climate change? Current renewable sources of energy are not technologically capable of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty. Consequently, the Breakthrough writers see "no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption" that keeps the projected increase in global average temperature below the Paris Agreement on climate change goal of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. This implies that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will exceed 450 parts per million. They correctly point out that forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is a "morally dubious proposition." They additionally observe that the wealth and technology produced by economic growth increases resilience to climatic extremes and other natural disasters. When bad weather encounters poverty, disaster ensues.It is worth noting that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's shared socioeconomic pathway narratives for the rest of the century include one, dubbed "SSP5," in which fossil fuels remain cheap, greenhouse gas concentrations more than triple, the average global temperature increases by nearly 4 degrees Celsius, and the rate of economic growth is high. Is that future a hell on earth? Not at all.
The "development first" SSP5 agenda results in the eradication of extreme poverty, greater gender equality, and universal access to education, safe drinking water, and modern energy before mid century, along with a strong build-up of developing countries' human and social capacity. "Lower socio-environmental challenges to adaptation result from attainment of human development goals, robust economic growth, highly engineered infrastructure with redundancy to minimize disruptions from extreme events, and highly managed ecosystems," notes the SSP report. In other words, people living in this economically robust scenario have greater incomes (up from the current average of around $10,000 to about $140,000 per capita in current dollars by 2100) and have access to much more advanced technologies with which to address whatever problems man-made climate change may throw at them.
"Lifting all of humanity out of energy poverty does increase the risk of catastrophic climate change impacts to some unknowable degree," concludes the Breakthrough Institute report. "But it is untenable morally and practically to insist that global climate change targets be balanced upon the backs of the poorest people on earth."
 

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,072
289
107
Navarre, FL
Interesting essay from a shunned climate heretic. http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic-1480723518

A link to the full article is here (top of page: My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic): https://www.google.com/search?q=My+...=My+Unhappy+Life+as+a+Climate+Heretic&tbm=nws

But the damage to my reputation had been done, and perhaps that was the point. Studying and engaging on climate change had become decidedly less fun. So I started researching and teaching other topics and have found the change in direction refreshing. Don’t worry about me: I have tenure and supportive campus leaders and regents. No one is trying to get me fired for my new scholarly pursuits.

But the lesson is that a lone academic is no match for billionaires, well-funded advocacy groups, the media, Congress and the White House. If academics—in any subject—are to play a meaningful role in public debate, the country will have to do a better job supporting good-faith researchers, even when their results are unwelcome. This goes for Republicans and Democrats alike, and to the administration of President-elect Trump.

Academics and the media in particular should support viewpoint diversity instead of serving as the handmaidens of political expediency by trying to exclude voices or damage reputations and careers. If academics and the media won’t support open debate, who will?
 
Last edited:

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL

NationalTitles18

TideFans Legend
May 25, 2003
29,905
35,280
362
Mountainous Northern California

PacadermaTideUs

All-American
Dec 10, 2009
4,072
289
107
Navarre, FL
I've respected Pielke for years. He's been a sane and objective, and in my opinion, legitimate (from an expertise perspective) voice on the topic of climate change for a long time. I started reading his research quite regularly around 2005, and he routinely upsets both alarmists and skeptics alike.
 

RhodeIslandRed

All-SEC
Dec 9, 2005
1,517
9
62
I thought it was a forgone conclusion that the globe was warming. I thought the debate was whether man is responsible. But as the case may be, there are many ways to curb carbon emissions, if this is the only practical solution. However some of these solutions are just unacceptable to the PTB.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - NEW Stuff!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.