mwgrant,
Darned autocomplete! Darned slack-brained dimwitted commenter!
A thousand pardons. I grovel in mortification – as I deserve.
Sorry.
mwgrant,
Darned autocomplete! Darned slack-brained dimwitted commenter!
A thousand pardons. I grovel in mortification – as I deserve.
Sorry.
Mortality is sweet I guess.
Danny,
They have many hockey sticks in Canada. When the next LIA comes along there will be tremendous selection pressure for Canadians – they are going to rule the world, eh. Demographics is destiny. :)
Whenever I see a fly I grab a cannon.
Climate alarmism is a spigot of funding – the unscrewable pooch of our time. However, we may be one election away from shutting it down. Then, we can allocate more funds to all areas of scientific research. How many post docs running models do we need? Jeesh!
> It seems to me that you’re the one bringing up something that you say has been addressed–not me, not other [contrarians].
This tu quoque distracts us from the fact that every contrarian memes have already been addressed many times, just like BartV has addressed all the talking points GW is rehearsing right now, many years after the fact.
***
> As for Bart’s point, our wealth is also expected to increase non-linearly and dramatically.
This appeal to ignorance ignores that BartV had more than one point, and that BartV’s point still applies, even if we’d assume infinite Grrrowth. Hint:
Insurance is the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for money. It is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.
Craig,
“…the best system consists of lots of independent agents making individual decisions…”
Ye old “Law of Requisite Variety”. However, oligarchs, dictators, and Peronists think top down works just fine for them.
Warmunistas are hoping they can use the power of the Feds to wrest control of the climate agenda and have their way with everyone. It’s like catching a giant rattlesnake with your hands. Once you have it, how do you toss it without getting bit?
Measuring losses only in GDP terms is inconsiderate of the impacts on the world’s low-wealth livelihoods that also may be hit hardest by climate change. The optimal solution when considering the whole picture is to minimize climate change.
Mike Flynn,
Darned autocomplete! Darned slack-brained dimwitted commenter!
A thousand pardons. I grovel in mortification – as I deserve.
Oooh, I can empathize all too well. :O)
Regards,
mig
Geewhillikers! I keep winding up in moderation and I am out of mulligans. There is always tomorrow.
Case closed, CO2 is a WMD. We must invade now.
An oldie but goodie decision process is outlined here:
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/perform/delphi_process.html
There is a rule in law that applies to climate science and should be an explicit part of any decision process: When it isn’t important to make a decision, it is important to not make a decision.
“If […] scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between Medieval times and the Little Ice Age, or other natural climate changes,
That would support the theory that they cannot predict the past that has already happened, there is evidence for that, and they cannot predict the present that has already happened, there is evidence for that, and they certainly cannot be trusted to predict the future that has not yet happened, the failed forecasts we already have for the most recent two decades show their forecasts were, are, terrible..
I’m skeptical that this would be preferable to a pigouvian tax because it is less flexible in rewarding innovations that reduce CO2 emissions. Using carbon-neutral fuels instead of fossil fuels is one way, but there is also using more efficient motors, using nuclear instead of fossil fuels, switching to renewables, etc. With a pigouvian tax, everything that reduces emissions by 1 ton would be rewarded equally so it gives you the most CO2 emission reduction for a given cost to your economy (your suggestion would primarily reward biofuel).
I’m not sure if the fact that different countries have different currencies is much of a problem since purchasing price parity is easily calculated and the taxes in each country can be adjusted each year so that the real value of the pigouvian tax is equal everywhere.
Jim, that is why I suggested using a coefficient of relative risk aversion greater than zero. As long as you are doing this, you are satisfying the Pigou-Dalton principle, so you are saying that the value of a dollar to a poor person is worth more than the value of a dollar to a rich person.
I’m not sure I follow how you get that the optimal solution is to minimize climate change. There are economic costs associated with mitigation, and they have to be compared with the benefits of mitigation. Are you suggesting that all countries should cease all CO2 emissions starting tomorrow?
And is it important to make any decisions on climate science now? Yes or no? Undecided? To me your text leaves it the reader to infer your position. Is that what you want at this time?
I guess interesting questions to me are how does one determine whether it is important to make a decision or perhaps it is important not to make a decision? My inference from your text is the latter. If so how did you arrive at that point? or the opposite? Just curious.
JimD
Hi Jim. Still hoping for a reply to this in which you seem to believe the media never discuss climate change. Thanks
http://judithcurry.com/2015/07/13/the-siddhartha-heuristic/#comment-718014
tonyb
Mwg, I’m not sure what is covered by “risk” here. In my experience, good decisions in government are often undermined by poor execution, sometimes because those charged with such execution aren’t on board, and may be pursuing different agendas; and because if execution is a long-term process, those involved over time may be radically different – e.g., through a change of government. Chopping and changing from the latter is a major impediment to successful implementation of good decisions in Australia. Faustino
+ 100
Longboat?