Climate change

[Brooke]

So . . .

You are totally hallucinating any connection between what I said in my post and insults to Greta Thunberg.  I was replying to Semp's post, specifically the part I clearly quoted at the top of my own post.  Did you know that starting off a reply like yours with "So" is a high-probability tell for cognitive dissonance?

Also, what I posted is neither conservative nor non-conservative.  It is just how systems work, as generally described by the field of macroeconomics.  I highly recommend Basic Economics, by Sowell.  It's one of the best books I've ever read.  I think it is one of the most-important books in the world.

[perdue3]

You are totally hallucinating any connection between what I said in my post and insults to Greta Thunberg.  I was replying to Semp's post, specifically the part I clearly quoted at the top of my own post.  Did you know that starting off a reply like yours with "So" is a high-probability tell for cognitive dissonance?

Also, what I posted is neither conservative nor non-conservative.  It is just how systems work, as generally described by the field of macroeconomics.  I highly recommend Basic Economics, by Sowell.  It's one of the best books I've ever read.  I think it is one of the most-important books in the world.

Not that Sowell's book is not a landmark, I prefer the more landmark economics books. I am not an economist myself nor have I studied it for the sake of studying economics. I have, however, read most eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century staple economic works. Works from the likes of Keynes, Marx, Smith, Friedman, and (dare I say) Hayek I find truly fascinating not for what they say necessarily, but the influence they've had on history in one respect or another. I find The O'Club in Aces High BBS a historically horrendous place to have academic and scholarly discussions. But, that is just from my personal experience.

[Arlo]

You are totally hallucinating any connection between what I said in my post and insults to Greta Thunberg.  I was replying to Semp's post, specifically the part I clearly quoted at the top of my own post.  Did you know that starting off a reply like yours with "So" is a high-probability tell for cognitive dissonance?

Also, what I posted is neither conservative nor non-conservative.  It is just how systems work, as generally described by the field of macroeconomics.  I highly recommend Basic Economics, by Sowell.  It's one of the best books I've ever read.  I think it is one of the most-important books in the world.

I wasn't just replying to that one post.

Hallucination

/Hallucination

And, um, no .... parsing and cherry-picking out bits and pieces of a big picture problem isn't how 'things work.' You might reconsider what books are 'most-important.' You can't 'macro-economic' climate change away.

[saggs]

The question is; Do you want to burn, or freeze?

Here's what I know:

There a thing called the Milankovitch cycle, it has to do with the changes in earths orbit over time, and is why we have an ice age every 100,000 yrs or so, with a 20,000 yr inter-glacial period.  It is a well understood and documented thing. One of the best evidences for mankind's contribution to climate change is that we have deviated from that natural cycle.  According to some, we should be at the peak temperature of the cycle, or even on the downward side heading toward the next ice age, but instead we continue to warm at an accelerated rate.

So according to the "climate crisis" alarmists, if we do not fundamentally transform human society in 12 years we will all die from warming.  BUT... if we somehow do all they demand, and eliminate all human effect on the climate, well, then it will revert to the natural cycle and we will all die from freezing.

So, you want to burn or freeze?  The only certainty is that the climate will not remain static, simply because we wish it to.



Other questions:

Is climate change real?    Of course, it is in constant change.

Is mankind to blame?     Partially, evidence suggests we have caused a deviation from the natural cycle.

Is it an existential threat to us as a species?  No, it is a very slow change.   We will adapt using ingenuity and technology, just like we always have.

If it is an existential threat, is governments and regulation the solution? No.


In short, climate change is real, man contributes to it in some degree (how much is impossible to tell), and I don't worry about it at all. The people out there preaching it will be the end of our species either;  (A) need some cause to give their live meaning, and this is it. or (B) stand to profit massively from the solutions they are hocking. or (C) politicians looking to get votes from groups A and B.

[pallero]

It is not about the climate at all.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/02/the-new-green-threat-extinction-rebellion/

This is what is behind of all. Agenda 21. UN:s projekt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GykzQWlXJs

[Brooke]

Not that Sowell's book is not a landmark, I prefer the more landmark economics books. I am not an economist myself nor have I studied it for the sake of studying economics. I have, however, read most eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century staple economic works. Works from the likes of Keynes, Marx, Smith, Friedman, and (dare I say) Hayek I find truly fascinating not for what they say necessarily, but the influence they've had on history in one respect or another. I find The O'Club in Aces High BBS a historically horrendous place to have academic and scholarly discussions. But, that is just from my personal experience.

I love discussing things like this here. 

This place has a much wider assortment of people than what I otherwise get to talk to.

I've read some of those other books, as well and several by Krugman; an excellent one to me (but way too dry for most people to want to read it) This Time is Different, by Reinhart and Rogoff; and the excellent Freakonomics, by Levitt and Dubner.  Some ones related to this (sort of) but more about civilization overall that I liked:  Civilization, by Furguson; Why Nations Fail, by Acemoglu and Robinson; Guns, Germs, and Steel, by Diamond; The History of the Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Gibbon; and Conquests and Cultures, by Sowell.

What makes Basic Economics by Sowell so awesome is that it lays out macroeconomics very well, thoroughly, and with lots of important real-world examples, and is something anyone can read and benefit from.  It's the best book on it I've read other than the about equally good Economics in One Lesson, by Hazlitt, which is a shorter.

My feeling is that if a lot more people read one or the other of those books (Basic Economics or Economics in One Lesson), nations would have significantly better governments.

[Brooke]

I wasn't just replying to that one post.

You didn't make that clear at all.

Nevertheless, your previous reply wasn't relevant to either of my posts because:
-- One of my posts was laughing at Zack's joke and had nothing at all to do with macroeconomics.
-- The other of my posts was about macroeconomics and had nothing at all to do with Zack's joke.

You are still hallucinating a connection that doesn't exist -- at all.

And now you are shifting the topic, namely to this:

And, um, no .... parsing and cherry-picking out bits and pieces of a big picture problem isn't how 'things work.' You might reconsider what books are 'most-important.' You can't 'macro-economic' climate change away.

Which is gibberish.

I am not cherry picking anything.  If you go back to my posts about global warming, you will see that I'm going through the most-general, most-basic data there is (namely, temperature and CO2 history of the earth) and explaining my point of view based on that.

None of my points is "macro-economic-ing climate change away".  My point is that you can spend a bunch of money on global-warming stuff, or you can spend that bunch of money on other things, which is indisputably true.  My opinion, which you can debate, is that the other stuff is more likely not to be scientific fads or hokum; and even if the global-warming field ends up not being a scientific fad or hokum, my opinion is that other stuff would have a better benefit for humans anyway.

You can debate the points I actually make.  But so far you are either purposefully misrepresenting my view, suffering from cognitive dissonance, or so horribly misunderstanding my points that the effect is the same.

Arlo, I give you a failing grades in science, scientific reasoning, and debate.   

[Arlo]

What you don't seem to get -

The entire thread is a Zack troll.

Even then, it didn't go completely south until Zack's Greta 'joke' (something you thought was quite funny - making you as immature as Zack).

My mentioning such didn't have to be entirely related to your love of macroeconomics.

Then my post also included that your division of climate versus migration versus hunger, etc. and how finances could only go to one or the other as if they weren't interrelated was a broken perception, love of macroeconomics or not.

You don't have to like that. Obviously you don't have to even understand that. I stated, early on, how this thread was a waste of everyone's time no matter what their opinion on the subject since it's not really a discussion about either understanding or solution seeking (as has been made obvious).

Everyone should just bluster on, see how far they can push the 'mutual respect' envelope and make crude 'funny' posts that make themselves feel better about their opinions.

Carry on. 

[FLS]

After I save the planet, I'm going to save the solar system. After that it's on to the milky way for more saving. Don't thank me now.

Greta Thunberg is a teenager mad at her parents. She is not a victim of climate change. She's as much a poster child for climate change as a skinny polar bear that's been hibernating all winter. The logic is that we should listen to her because she knows less than we do. 2+2=5. Believe or be shunned.

It was the best of times it was the worst of times. 

[Brooke]

What you don't seem to get -

The entire thread is a Zack troll.

Wrong.  I know that.

Even then, it didn't go completely south until Zack's Greta 'joke' (something you thought was quite funny - making you as immature as Zack).

I make no claims here on my maturity! 

Then my post also included that your division of climate versus migration versus hunger, etc. and how finances could only go to one or the other as if they weren't interrelated was a broken perception, love of macroeconomics or not.

Gibberish.  You can spend X on global warming, and then it isn't available to spend on other things that are not global warming.  Global warming is a collection of items, of course, as is nearly everything you buy.  You could buy a sail boat for $100k, or spend it on a house improvement, or 2 years of out-of-state university.  In all of those cases, some of that money will go to the oil industry (chemicals used in sail boats, houses, college buildings, faculty using gas in their cars).  Everything has some overlap of where the money goes -- you don't then conclude that money into global warming gives the same distribution of results as putting money into those other things I listed.

You don't have to like that. Obviously you don't have to even understand that.

It is true that I don't know what you are talking about with regard at least to these two sentences.

I stated, early on, how this thread was a waste of everyone's time no matter what their opinion on the subject since it's not really a discussion about either understanding or solution seeking (as has been made obvious).

Are you thinking discussions here change anyone's mind?  Nothing anyone says here on this entire board, ever, is likely to change anyone else's mind about anything fundamental.  What we are doing is having a discussion or debate for fun.  Some people enjoy that.  If a person doesn't, he's in the wrong place.

[Arlo]

Gibberish.

[guncrasher]

The question is; Do you want to burn, or freeze?

Here's what I know:

semp is better looking than the british dweeb

thanks for your kind words.


think you missed my point.  I dont understand global warming or lack of it.  might as well try to explain to me the strategy of baseball when all I see is two guys playing catch.

when I say burn or freeze, I more like make reference to go all in or freeze and do nothing.  me, I say stay in the middle and see what good comes out of it.  some money maybe wasted but some will come out with something useful.  that's why the reference to the smog or y2k.  what I find interesting more is the DONT FEED YOUR PARANOIA guys who post endless references to some guy or guys born a billion years ago who want to rule the world.

anyway, can somebody tell me why do guys on the golf chanel whisper the play by play when they are 2000 miles away and the players cant hear them?


semp

[Chris79]

After I save the planet, I'm going to save the solar system. After that it's on to the milky way for more saving. Don't thank me now.

Greta Thunberg is a teenager mad at her parents. She is not a victim of climate change. She's as much a poster child for climate change as a skinny polar bear that's been hibernating all winter. The logic is that we should listen to her because she knows less than we do. 2+2=5. Believe or be shunned.

It was the best of times it was the worst of times. 

I do not believe that Polar Bears hibernate.

[Arlo]

http://www.polarbearendangered.com/polar-bears-hibernate/

[TequilaChaser]

Actually TC, you missed the irony of my post,   


semp

Nope not at all, I picked up on the verbal, the dramatic as well as the situational types of irony that you were throwing down, Semp.....yes you nailed them all

Cheers

TC