Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (46629)	1/24/2014 3:57:22 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

That's impressive that climate can selectively hunt down poor people and make them poorer while it can carefully work around rich people and make them richer. Gaia must be a nasty piece of work to do that, as well as suicidal, removing all that carbon from the ecosphere and burying it far underground which took the great expertise of humans to do the recycling to prevent the big final freeze. It's a tough life when even the climate is looking after the rich and whacking the poor. But is it an "expense" if rich people get richer faster than poor people getting richer? Normally, an expense is a cost which is a loss, like entropy. But with everyone getting richer, it's more like the inflationary cosmos than entropy dragging it down. <While climate change has continued to increase global average GDP, this has come at the expense of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. This isn't a surprise, given that the poorest countries, who contribute the least to the climate problem, are the most vulnerable to climate change. The report attempts to account for this disparity with an "equity-weighted" economic impact of climate change, illustrated by the black dotted line in the above figure, and concludes, "the maximum impact of climate change occurs 45 years earlier [in 1980] when equity weighted." Thus if we weight the impact of climate change on GDP to account for the adverse impact to the economies of poorer countries, according to this report, we reached peak climate economic benefit in 1980. After about 2015, the dotted curve declines steeply.> It's silly to extrapolate so many decades, to the 22nd century. That's like blacksmiths in the early 20th century projecting out to now. Their predictions about A380s, autocars and Cyberspace would be way off the mark. Their predictions about genetic engineering and selection would be bung too. The Global Alarmist "Settled Scientists" couldn't even get their GIGO computer models to get the first decade correct. It's laughable to think they have a clue about 100 years from now. Mqurice

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (46629)	1/24/2014 5:26:56 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Hi Wharf Rat; The hilarious article you posted says that "In the figure above, while the annual impact on the global economy from climate change remains positive until the late 21st century ..."; So let me get this straight. You've brought us an article which shows that global warming has a positive impact on the global economy until "the late 21st century". BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! LOL!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! And so we're going to ruin our economies now for an advantage that won't happen until 75 years from now??? How the hell are you going to convince us that it's possible for an idiot in 2014 to have any idea what the global economy of 2090 is going to be like? But your article admits that for several generations, (LOL!!!) global warming will improve our economies! I just can't believe you bring crap like this to the discussion. Arguing that global warming benefits the current economy is completely contradictory to your arguments that global warming causes expensive storms. Or do you now admit that those storms aren't as expensive as the advantages we gain from more CO2 in the air and higher temperatures (in the present)? No, I know you. You're going to deny that the above article makes sense even though the article is by a group that you supported in the past. With you it's not about truth or science. It's about politics. And when a scientist reverses a position that previously supported you, you will reject their new work. -- Carl