-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Standard free market economist view. The cost of responding to AGW is expensive and science isn't absolute. All published papers can be crticised. No one study is perfect.Giardiasis said:
Azza said:
Fair enough. I just finished reading Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" in which he recommends only judging papers on their method rather than conclusions or discussion, this is where most media get it wrong and end up with silly headlines. The data can always be interpreted in multiple ways. I haven't looked in depth at the links yet. Got some time on my hands so I will try to drill down a bit. Obviously I am broadly in support of the notion of AGW, hopefully that doesn't cloud my judgement too much. The consensus isn't informative in itself. The science speaks for itself through prediction based upon the model. If the prevailing conditions are consistent with the predictions then the model gets stronger. But AGW will be a very slow moving beast so it will be very hard to provide the kind of evidence that the doubters would accept. That is why it is better to act now. The benefits outweigh the costs IMO. A future where energy costs less and produces less pollution and does less environmental damage is a win-win-win isn't it?
From his Facebook Page : "Interpretation of contemporary economic developments from an Austrian School of Economics point of view." A friend of your Gia?Giardiasis said:
Giardiasis said:
Stands to reason doesn't it? You literally come from the same school of thought. Seeing as the Austrian School is a school of economics why does he presume to understand the science better than the experts? To hear from them go here: The Science Show. I have no problem with a discussion of the economics of action versus inaction (though I may be undermanned in such a discussion) my problem is when people stray into the science and attempt to discredit it, then make their argument. This is disengenuous in the extreme. If logic is your measure then you have already failed as logically the best people to assess the climate science are the climate scientists surely, not economists.
If Rudd's purported changes to the 'fixed price" carbon tax come in, that being a floating emissions trading scheme (read here) what effect does this have on global warming? Is it better to have a fixed price or a floating price?
I just wonder because the fixed price was set to increase from $23 to $24.15 but if it goes the way of the European model, 1. it causes a hole in the budget of $15 billion (ets ). But, 2. will it be better or worse environmentally?
Thoughts....
I just wonder because the fixed price was set to increase from $23 to $24.15 but if it goes the way of the European model, 1. it causes a hole in the budget of $15 billion (ets ). But, 2. will it be better or worse environmentally?
Thoughts....
willo said:
Rudd knows the carbon tax is rubbish...mind you, he was the one that canned it before he was ousted by Gillard
Rudd also knows that the carbon tax is something that may cause him some sleepless nights when trying to cling to power in the lead up to the election.
I wonder what the posters on here who were so supportive of Gillard and the carbon tax think about the ALP and Rudd's backtracking of their beloved scheme to save the world's environment?
None of this has anything to do with the environment. Governments (in their various forms) and Businesses have shown time and time again throughout history that money is the prime concern. If the environment is polluted beyond hope (Which I believe it has) then apparently that's just collateral damage. I've pointed out in the past (to no avail) that the universe couldn't care less about humans or our activities and that the universe will go on, most likely without us due to our supreme stupidity.
At the end of the day, we need the environment to simply survive. Too bad if we pollute it to the point it kills us.
Any attempt to put a 'value' on pollution is futile.
At the end of the day, we need the environment to simply survive. Too bad if we pollute it to the point it kills us.
Any attempt to put a 'value' on pollution is futile.
I think putting a price on pollution is a good idea. I think it is TigerSnake who has made the point that the fossil fuel industries have been operating in a false economy precisely because there is a cost to the pollution created by these industries but they haven't been paying for it. For me though it is the impetus it gives for industry (and homes) to bring on smarter, more sustainable, less damaging, future-proof technologies. This is where I think the politics and the policy separate. I think the policies of the Labor government have been more towards this end, but all the rhetoric has been about climate change as that is the easier political fight to have, IMO. For that reason I don't see it as a debate about how much these policies will affect the global climate. It seems only logical that if we can generate electricity without also creating pollution there can only be a benefit in terms of environmental impact. In any case the complex systems we are talking about change over millennia so I don't think it aides the debate to try to look at how this policy or that policy will affect global climate. This is a tactic of the right to frame the debate in a way that suits their "do-nothing" philosophy. It is more interesting and potentially lucrative and beneficial to look at what kinds of technology and systems will make the fossil fuel industry obsolete, not out of vindictiveness or some maniacal socialism but because the new technologies are better, cheaper, more efficient, less polluting (ideally not polluting at all) and not tied to a dwindling resource.
More on topic, as you have mentioned the European price crumbled so I can't see how jumping to a floating price quickly is a wise move, though I would say it would be looked upon favourably by the energy sector and consumers.
More on topic, as you have mentioned the European price crumbled so I can't see how jumping to a floating price quickly is a wise move, though I would say it would be looked upon favourably by the energy sector and consumers.
I made an obvious answer to an obvious question.KnightersRevenge said:
Personally I think reasoning by authority to be a poor substitute for thinking for yourself. What do you think of his economic argument for non-action?
Giardiasis said:
He doesn't really have one. The "economic" argument relies on the pseudoscience of "AGW isn't really happening" and "green alternatives like electric cars aren't really efficient". The study on the cars has already been debunked by the way. There's a lot of the usual semantic mumbo jumbo about how CO2 is not really a pollutant as well, nice job walking man.
So what he is really saying (shock) is let the market do its job - business will become more energy efficient as it saves them money. ETS and regulations will make markets more inefficient, which means we will have less wealth to then tackle the problem. How the "problem" should be tackled with all this increased wealth is of course not explained.
This is of course what will happen when a dogmatic economist tries to tackle a complex political, social and environmental problem on the basis of pure ideology.
His economic argument makes the assumption AGW is happening ??? His pointing to the fragility of the pseudoscience of AGW was separate from that. You call it mumbo jumbo, your response to it I call the emperors new clothes. We're not really getting anywhere by arguing like this though are we?antman said:
Perhaps you can provide the link to the green blog that has apparently debunked the car study?
Of course he didn't explain how the problem would be tackled with increased wealth. No-one can actually specifically detail what the problem is anyway, so pretending to know how to deal with a problem we don't know about would be ridiculous.
Using ad hominem might make you feel better, but it just weakens your argument. Perhaps you can just outline why you think that strategy is a bad one?
Giardiasis said:
It is not reasoning by authority IMO, it is understanding the limits of reason when discussing complex scientific issues and understanding that it is only reasonable when discussing such issues to defer to those with greater knowledge. Many things in our universe defy simple reason. There must be times when one accepts that others understand a subject better than oneself no? On the economic argument I can't take it seriously as it is argued against a backdrop of denial of established knowledge.
Eh, how is that not reasoning by authority? That's fine if that's your argument but at least accept it for what it is.KnightersRevenge said:
Giardiasis said:
OK. Let's agree that there is a clever name for my argument and then further agree that labelling it doesn't invalidate it. Cogitation has its limits.
My point remains. If your contemporary from the Austrian School wishes to discuss the economics he does his argument a disservice by apealling to bad science.
