Global Warming

On Apr 20, 5:39*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:


You want a doomsday scenario


And here it is:

http://tech.msn.com/guides/green/art...mentid=6815394

"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" wrote in message
...
On Apr 20, 5:39 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

You want a doomsday scenario


And here it is:

http://tech.msn.com/guides/green/art...mentid=6815394

I have to hand it to you Fabrizio, at least YOU have a head on your
shoulders and realize the real importance of global warming.

William Asher wrote:

All I can say is that if you really read this:

http://tinyurl.com/kaa55

and make the same claims without providing some evidence to counter what
the folks at realclimate say, it doesn't say much about your ability to
assimilate information that doesn't conform to your world view (which is
the hallmark of conservatism).

Again, if you are incapable of assimilating basic historical facts, how
can I begin to trust your understanding of physics?


http://tinyurl.com/6dwrg2 (LA Times)

In article
,
Robert Chung wrote:

On Apr 18, 6:12 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
So why hasn't generalized world economic progress already resulted in
prosperity in Bangladesh? Put another way, your example of cleaner
cities and higher GDP now than 100 years ago in the developed world
could (and should) actually be viewed as an example that a cleaner
environment needn't result in a decrease in the standard of living.
Which is what many denialists always swear up and down will happen
from any form of environmental regulation (I made that last part up,
just in case you were wondering).

This is an excellent question with a follow-up that does rather put the
gears to me. Fortunately, I'm really smart!

No, not really, but I do glibly know the answer as to why Bangladesh is
the breadbasket-case of the subcontinent.

[...Bangladesh suffered from the insanest management of their cash crop
that was possible]

I sat on this post for a few days until I could get my brains in order,
but here's my best shot.

That's pretty glib--and pretty flexible: any failure, by definition,
is a failure caused by government intervention. Two things:

Yes, but Bangladesh managed to use almost every poor economic tactic
possible. I suspect we can agree that subsidizing the production of cash
crops is not a well thought out plan. I suspect we can agree that state
ownership of important national industries rarely ends well.

I also think that there consensus among experts has generally ended with
avoiding such schemes. The new hotness is Grameen Bank, and well, I'm
all down with the Yunus.

1. Market equilibria aren't independent of initial conditions. Think
about that for a while.

I am dense, and have had too little to drink. I can neither disagree nor
determine what initial condition Bangladesh had in 1950 that did not
apply to Taipei, Hong Kong, or South Korea.

2. You skipped entirely the latter part of my question. Don't think I
didn't notice.

Heh. I think that the question of the "cost" of serious environmental
cleaning, CO2-wise (or every-other-pollutant-wise, regarding the last
100 years) is that the costs of environmental regulations (or any other
initiative) are unknown and nearly unknowable.

What we can ask is what could have been (or could be) accomplished for
the same price.

One might as well ask what the cost of World War 1 was.

That said, I think that embarking on an enterprise as expensive as
serious global CO2 reductions must at least be seriously priced against
two things:

1) the discount rate:

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/ma...11/the_stern_r
epor.html

2) the other public goods we could purchase for the same price.

I think this even before I remember that I live in a country which could
seriously use some warming, and which has a lot more cold interior than
shallow coastline.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in
m:

"William Asher" wrote in message
...

Could you provide a citation from a paper published in the 60's or
70's in a major peer-reviewed journal that explicity stated that the
cooling observed in that era was a sign of a coming ice age? You've
been provided two studies showing there were none, but if you have
some inside information, now would be the time to provide it.

Can you provide a peer reviewed paper published in the 60's or 70's
the WOULD make such insane statements? Scientsts THEN were scientists.
What we have now are people desiring large grants to put together
trememdous teams of semi-scientists so that they can pat each other on
the back and make HUGE wages. Since I've just left a company doing
just that I have a pretty good idea of what's happening.

So then you think Jack is wrong too, and that there is no way he could
remember there being lots of papers claiming an ice age was coming
because there weren't any such papers. Thank you for your support.

I'm sorry you had to leave another company.

--
Bill Asher

On Apr 20, 9:49 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

I sat on this post for a few days until I could get my brains in order,
but here's my best shot.

Ugh. You sat on this for a few days and this is the best you could do?
I'm afraid that you need some help in getting your brains in order and
since this is rbr I ain't going to help you. Instead, I'll point out
that my question to you is quite relevant to the argument you're
trying to make but have been screwing up so I'll take this opportunity
to ask a new but related question: how does the market decide between
Pareto optimal alternatives? Please phrase your answer in the form of
a question.

In article , William Asher
wrote:

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in
m:

"William Asher" wrote in message
...

Could you provide a citation from a paper published in the 60's or
70's in a major peer-reviewed journal that explicity stated that the
cooling observed in that era was a sign of a coming ice age? You've
been provided two studies showing there were none, but if you have
some inside information, now would be the time to provide it.

Can you provide a peer reviewed paper published in the 60's or 70's
the WOULD make such insane statements? Scientsts THEN were scientists.
What we have now are people desiring large grants to put together
trememdous teams of semi-scientists so that they can pat each other on
the back and make HUGE wages. Since I've just left a company doing
just that I have a pretty good idea of what's happening.

So then you think Jack is wrong too, and that there is no way he could
remember there being lots of papers claiming an ice age was coming
because there weren't any such papers. Thank you for your support.

"Thanks for playing!"

I'm sorry you had to leave another company.

Oh, pretense of sympathy - nice. It's sort of along the lines of saying, "I'm
sorry you're such a retard."

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

William Asher wrote:
Could you provide a citation from a paper published in the 60's or 70's
in a major peer-reviewed journal that explicity stated that the cooling
observed in that era was a sign of a coming ice age? it.

Tom Kunich wrote:
Can you provide a peer reviewed paper published in the 60's or 70's the
WOULD make such insane statements? Scientsts THEN were scientists.

ANSWER THE QUESTION. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH ?
**** OR GET OFF THE POT.....................

Fabrizio Mazzoleni wrote:
You want a doomsday scenario
And here it is:
http://tech.msn.com/guides/green/art...mentid=6815394

LIVEDRUNK will need to change its wicked ways.

Kyle Legate wrote:
30 years!?!? We have to wait for 30 years for RBR to become inhabitable?

William Asher wrote:
I'm thinking we all will be long dead from AIDS by then so what does it
matter?

Only the bots and the cockroaches will remain.