tvashtarkatena Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Despite his prodigious word counts, many of JayB's arguments are actually quite simple and nonsensical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 JayB's arguments, with the characteristic sophistry and verbosity stripped away: The problem's too big to solve. Ignore. It's obvious by now that warming is primarily caused by emissions, but reducing emissions won't reduce warming. Any money/effort you put into reducing emissions could be better spent elsewhere. If the oceans collapse due to acidification, or the icecaps sluff into the sea, just adapt to it. JayB doesn't believe that external costs actually cost anything. Throw away half of the equation and it's much more pleasing math that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 -China and India aren't going to step on their own economic air-hose. -The rich world is fundamentally insolvent and can't generate enough output to satisfy all of its debt obligations even without making energy dramatically more expensive, so the odds of adding a few dozen trillion dollars worth of economic friction for the sake of a policy that won't have any effect on the trajectory of CO2 concentrations (see above) isn't going to happen. -Much better to spend the money on stuff that has a higher (like many orders of magnitude) bang-for-the-buck ratio when it comes to preserving habitat and alleviating human suffering than playing the atmospheric equivalent of Don Quixote. -Run the numbers. What's the CO2 trajectory look like if US and European emissions go to zero? What are the current baseline assumptions for trend reductions in C02 concentration? The answer for anything but extremely modest and incremental reductions is "so big that there's no way anyone can or would ever pay them." The figure below is just for the US - average that out across the globe and the "nope" just gets more emphatic. Time to start crusading for something more tractable, like the immediate cessation of all tectonic shifts in the Earths crustal plates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Bullshit alarm 1: China's rapidly becoming one of the world leaders in sustainable energy production. Yes, they're building a lot of coal plants...and they're also doing a lot of things we SHOULD be doing. Bullshit alarm 2: Who's talking about trillions of investment? No one. It would take only 60 billion to entirely upgrade our grid and increase its efficiency by 20% or more. Bullshit alarm 3: Gee, think we should spend on stuff that has a bang for the buck? WOW. Move over Newt! Smartest Kid In The Room comin' through! Bullshit alarm 4: No one is proposing reducing emissions to zero, nor is it necessary. GEE, THAT WOULD COST A LOT, WOULDN'T IT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 BTW, considering your shitheel sources, I don't even look at your unreferenced graphs...unless I need to know what's happening in the Electric Sector, that is. Look up energy wedges. It's doable. Unless you're a fuckhead with a hidden agenda, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I sure feel like we should be taking economic advice from those who crashed the economy, refused to start shifting energy sources starting decades ago, and refused to decrease CO2 emissions starting 20 years ago, and still don't want to acknowledge that externalized costs actually cost a whole lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 i'm sure tvash will trade you a photo of him scarfing down a bag of caramel bugles in exchange for one of you banging a betty? honestly, no one gives a crap about such things of course - for myself, i do wonder why you've emerged from the preternatural slime all charged up over al gore's cause of the lost decade? jesus h tap-dancing christ, where's the nut in bitch'n'bout global climate change or whatever the machine wants to call it these days? and how are any of the proposed solutions (less oil consumption, more efficient electronics, green energy innovation, etc) evils on the same scale as war w/o end, titanic public debt, the dismantling of the state, corporate co-opting of the republic, etc.? is this really where the Good Fight needs to be made currently? The guy behind the "Climategate" released a statement to accompany the second tranche of e-mail disclosures... /// FOIA 2011 -- Background and Context /// "Over 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day." "Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes." "One dollar can save a life" -- the opposite must also be true. "Poverty is a death sentence." "Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels." Today's decisions should be based on all the information we can get.... http://foia2011.org/ Not sure where whoever this is ranks the various ills that can beset humanity, but there are quite a few folks including myself that accept the scientific consensus that the globe is warming and CO2 emissions are driving the change who nonetheless think that diverting trillions of dollars into limiting emissions will be a massive waste of money because it won't actually do much to prevent warming, will cripple or at least substantially hinder economic growth, and waste precious resources that could be put to much better use if the goal is to prevent human suffering and ecosystem damage. Given the yawning chasm between the rich world's economic output and its present future commitments to its old people - anything that makes it tougher to pay for them by hindering growth and output is toast. Might as well accept that, quit the international kabuki dance, and allow smart folks to benefit by giving people the tools to make more stuff with fewer resources and learn to live in a world with a higher CO2 concentration for the next few centuries. i'm confused on the connection between what i said and you said obviously, the bottom line is human happiness, be the matter at hand the environoment, taxes, pitbulls in city-parks, whatever specifics are easiest to comprehend - the al gore types want to see less use of fossil fuels - isn't oil going to run out rather soon, in the grand sense of time, and if it is in fact tied up in damaging the envirnoment, isn't it wise to push alternatives as soon as possible? Not necessarily. Depends on the cost, benefits, and feasibility. Mankind could have burned a lot of time, wealth, and energy trying to send a man to the moon using existing technology back in the 17th, 18th, or 19th century without achieving much beyond squandering the said time, energy, and resources. The point is there's lots of stuff that'll give humanity vastly more bang for the buck if the goal is to alleviate human suffering and minimize ecological damage. (list below). When and if there's an energy source that generates more energy at a lower cost with the same or better reliability than the stuff we use now that'll spur a massive investment binge since it'll pay for itself and then some. Might as well go down that path since adding a few dozen trillion dollars worth of friction to an economic machine that's shuddering under the load of existing obligations represents a road that the civilized world is never going to walk down, no matter how much wailing and teeth-gnashing the assorted scourges, scolds, and scrutineers amongst the conference-going class unleash at their bi-annual seances that try to bring it back from the dead. It's over. 1 Micronutrient supplements for children (vitamin A and zinc) Malnutrition 2 The Doha development agenda Trade 3 Micronutrient fortification (iron and salt iodization) Malnutrition 4 Expanded immunization coverage for children Diseases 5 Biofortification Malnutrition 6 Deworming and other nutrition programs at school Malnutrition & Education 7 Lowering the price of schooling Education 8 Increase andimprove girls’ schooling Women 9 Community-based nutrition promotion Malnutrition 10 Provide support for women’s reproductive role Women 11 Heart attack acute management Diseases 12 Malaria prevention and treatment Diseases 13 Tuberculosis case finding and treatment Diseases 14 R&D in low-carbon energy technologies Global Warming 15 Bio-sand filters for household water treatment Water 16 Rural water supply Water 17 Conditional cash transfers Education 18 Peace-keepingin post‐conflict situations Conflicts 19 HIV combination prevention Diseases 20 Total sanitation campaign Water 21 Improving surgical capacity at district hospital level Diseases 22 Microfinance Women 23 Improved stove intervention Air Pollution 24 Large, multipurpose dam in Africa Water 25 Inspection and maintenance of diesel vehicles Air Pollution 26 Low sulfur diesel for urban road vehicles Air Pollution 27 Diesel vehicle particulate control technology Air Pollution 28 Tobacco tax Diseases 29 R&D and mitigation Global Warming 30 Mitigation only Global Warming sounds just like kicking the can down the road, which i suppose is fine, so long as there's road left to kick it down - the footprint of 7 billion meat-puppets though, be it on fresh-water, fossil fuels, co2 emmisions, whatever, already seems damn near bigger than the road itself well reasoned enough maybe, but it still ends in the need to just be a lemming and jump off the damn cliff? better to be damned for trying to do something, than doing nothing at all? and again, while i appreciate the metaphor of da vinci trying to build a rocketship, i don't think the cyncism is warranted here - we already can do some pretty badass stuff, and we have no shortage of egg-heads such as yourself to make it all work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 -Run the numbers. What's the CO2 trajectory look like if US and European emissions go to zero? What are the current baseline assumptions for trend reductions in C02 concentration? The answer for anything but extremely modest and incremental reductions is "so big that there's no way anyone can or would ever pay them." The figure below is just for the US - average that out across the globe and the "nope" just gets more emphatic. Do any of these models account for GDP loss due to climate change? Of course not and you didn't feel like mentioning it. You sound like a charlatan to me. A REPORT OF THE ECONOMICS OF CLIMATE ADAPTATION WORKING GROUP: "These studies have produced some striking findings, which will help country leaders, international institutions and practitioners reframe adaptation as climate-resilient development. We have seen that poor adaptation to current climate already destroys considerable economic value – in the locations studied between 1 and 12 percent of the GDP annually. Impact from climate is not just a future concern, although the scale of possible future climate change could dwarf these losses." http://www.mckinseyonsociety.com/downloads/reports/Economic-Development/ECA_Shaping_Climate%20Resilent_Development.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Bullshit alarm 1: China's rapidly becoming one of the world leaders in sustainable energy production. Yes, they're building a lot of coal plants...and they're also doing a lot of things we SHOULD be doing. Bullshit alarm 2: Who's talking about trillions of investment? No one. It would take only 60 billion to entirely upgrade our grid and increase its efficiency by 20% or more. Bullshit alarm 3: Gee, think we should spend on stuff that has a bang for the buck? WOW. Move over Newt! Smartest Kid In The Room comin' through! Bullshit alarm 4: No one is proposing reducing emissions to zero, nor is it necessary. GEE, THAT WOULD COST A LOT, WOULDN'T IT? 1. 2. Still have to generate the power to send across the more efficient grid. The majority of the costs associated with decreasing CO2 emissions are on the production and consumption side, not transmission. 3. Good. That excludes all but minor and incremental changes in the way that the world generates its energy. 4. It's a boundary condition, not a proposal. There's a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 India and China's emissions are skyrocketing because you outsourced CO2 emissions along with production (and the jobs attached to it). Doh ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 India and China's emissions are skyrocketing because you outsourced CO2 emissions along with production (and the jobs attached to it). Doh ... Since certain public employees have seen fit to collectively price their labor far beyond what the market will bear, maybe we should outsource their jobs as well. :kisss: Bu Bye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 On average public employees earn less than their equivalent in the private sector. I have cited a half dozen analyses to that effect including one done by the Seattle Times, which is hardly progressive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Since certain public employees have seen fit to collectively price their labor far beyond what the market will bear, maybe we should outsource their jobs as well. :kisss: Bu Bye. I am glad to read you are finally acknowledging your bit part role in pushing the race to the bottom that underlies this economic crisis. Note that I won't say that you are anti-American or whatever garbage you'd come up with if the situation was reversed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 On average public employees earn less than their equivalent in the private sector. I have cited a half dozen analyses to that effect including one done by the Seattle Times, which is hardly progressive Since you're lying again, I'll cross-post the 2010 state payroll here as well: http://www.thenewstribune.com/soundinfo/statesalaries/?appSession=334143084561169&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=1&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 That's the database used by the Seattle Times who actually analyzed the data, dumbo ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 By all means, show us the comps for WA State private sector salaries... Of course, Bill Gates' salary isn't taxpayer funded... "Dumbo"?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 TTK's Chinese utopia today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-15956299 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Since certain public employees have seen fit to collectively price their labor far beyond what the market will bear, maybe we should outsource their jobs as well. :kisss: Bu Bye. i'm sure the irony of a chinese national teaching the virtues of democracy would be lost on your children Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Since certain public employees have seen fit to collectively price their labor far beyond what the market will bear, maybe we should outsource their jobs as well. :kisss: Bu Bye. i'm sure the irony of a chinese national teaching the virtues of democracy would be lost on your children Didn't you know that the basketball coaches, neurosurgeons, etc found at the top of the Washington state employee salary list are really big on collective bargaining? All of this whining about top public employee salaries is really symptomatic of the crass demagoguery of the right wing. They would outsource our world class institutions like UW hospital in a jiff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Since certain public employees have seen fit to collectively price their labor far beyond what the market will bear, maybe we should outsource their jobs as well. :kisss: Bu Bye. i'm sure the irony of a chinese national teaching the virtues of democracy would be lost on your children "A Chinese national?" Kind of a racist frame there, but, regardless, I suspect ChiCom teachings via-a-vis democracy these days aren't too much different than what kids are being taught in, say, your class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Please provide a properly cited link to support that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 TTK's Chinese utopia today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-15956299 so....china's evil b/c its expanded it defintion of who's poor by 100%? you woulda been a big herbert hoover supporter back in the day, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I suspect ChiCom teachings via-a-vis democracy these days aren't too much different than what kids are being taught in, say, your class. holy shit, they also are drinking coffee and reading the paper in the back of the room while the 1960's era film-strip is rolling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 TTK's Chinese utopia today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-15956299 so....china's evil b/c its expanded it defintion of who's poor by 100%? you woulda been a big herbert hoover supporter back in the day, no? $1 per day! Sounds to me like you support a very limited upper class--and semantics that gloss-over oppression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I suspect ChiCom teachings via-a-vis democracy these days aren't too much different than what kids are being taught in, say, your class. holy shit, they also are drinking coffee and reading the paper in the back of the room while the 1960's era film-strip is rolling? Seriously - a colleague of my wife, guy who recently retired from teaching after 40 years, was still using film strips, drinking coffee, and reading the paper! Holy cow - after 40 years I give him credit if he's still standing and not mixing in Jameson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.