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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (67141)	4/16/2018 5:27:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 357772

I don't think the climate change idea is all a hoax. I think it basically goes without question that human activity has some impact on climate, its clearly established that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and there is reason for some concern about possible future climate impacts from CO2 increases. I don't think that even those pushing the most extreme scenarios are for the most part participating in some hoax. Believing in something wrong isn't the same as pushing a hoax. To the extent there was anything remotely resembling a hoax it was pushing the idea, and ignoring anything to the contrary hard because its so strongly believed and and consider so important. That more bias than hoax. But going with your cartoon - Lets say it was all a hoax. The problem is that it isn't "a better world for nothing" Its spending a lot in a number of ways receiving a world that isn't as good as it otherwise could have been. Energy independence Not something that's likely to be achieved and not something I consider a worthwhile goal anyway. International trade is better than everyone trying to be self sufficient in every important good. Preserve rain forests Will it really do that? And better than using a fraction of the resources needed to restructure global energy supply to more directly address the problem? Adding extra costs can increase the amount of deforestation. Sustainability In some ways alternatives are sometimes less sustainable, existing only because of government requirements or support rather than being something that sustains itself economically without any intervention. Of course that's not the type of sustainability being addressed but the fact that fossil fuels have a finite supply and will become more expensive over time to extract. But the more expensive over time is the point. Prices contain signals which coordinate economic activity more efficiently than political decision making and government demands do. If supply of oil really does start to run down (it will never actually run out) higher prices communicate the relative scarcity of a good and provide the signal to look for alternatives. I trust the market to respond properly to such signals far more than I trust politicians to do so. Green Jobs To the extent that you need more people to produce the same amount of energy that's a cost not a benefit. Livable Cities - Clean Water Air etc. - That goes back to what I've already mentioned. There is a real benefit to reducing pollution and alternative sources, even considering their indirect impact, can be less polluting. So you gain something here, but probably not in the most efficient way even just focusing on that goal, and even less likely to be the number one priority considering all other human needs and wants.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (67141)	4/24/2018 7:13:13 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 357772

A Revealing Cartoon The cartoon shown below gets posted to FaceBook by people arguing for policies to reduce global warming. The implicit assumption is that all of the things they want to do for that purpose are good things that they would be in favor of even if warming was not a problem. It apparently does not occur to the people who post the cartoon that one implication of their posting it is that they have a reason to believe in, and preach, the threat of catastrophic global warming—whether or not it's true. I expect that most of the people who post the cartoon, or approve of it, would see the point in a commercial context. They realize that the fact that someone is trying to sell you a car is a good reason to be skeptical of his account of its condition. Most would also recognize it in the political context, providing it was not their politics in question—many of them, after all, believe that criticism of CAGW is largely fueled by the self-interest of oil companies. But it apparently does not occur to them that, for someone not persuaded of their policies, the same argument applies to them, that, from the standpoint of the people they want to convince, the cartoon is a reason to be more skeptical of their views, not less. daviddfriedman.blogspot.com