It is also well known that entering WWII spent the US out of the Great depression, war keynesianism that is.
The "war keynesianism" that reversed a lot of remarkably bad FDR policy such as ending most state enforced oligopolies and curbing the granted powers to labor unions? That "war keynesianism"?
It's interesting how often "well known" facts aren't actually facts, but myths embraced by one group or another. What I mentioned above is another "well known" interpretation of what happened in the Second World War. A third "well known" interpretation is AC's observation that in the postwar period, the US had the only intact developed world economy.
And you also commit the error of confusing short term economic activity with long term economic benefit.
Military does also not interfere with the normal market as citizens tend to buy no tanks.
Only if you ignore that wealth, resources, and labor devoted to the building of tanks isn't then available for the normal market. A bit of steel put in a tank could have been used for a bridge. An engineer who designs a new tank could have designed a new car for the private world. The wealth from taxes that went to developing, constructing, and maintaining those tanks could have been used for all sorts of private sector activities. The value derived from the tank may well outweigh the alternative uses for what went into that tank. But it would be foolish to ignore that there are opportunity costs for that tank.
This doesn't demonstrate that ocean acidification is a problem?
Why would you think it does? There's idle and unfounded speculation in the story that acidification from the Permian extinction is equivalent to what happens from AGW. One would expect idle speculation even when the analogy is completely spurious.
I can't make you share my opinion, you have access to all the same facts as me, you're just reckless. I have similar conversations with text n' drivers.
As do I. They tend to dump a couple of irrelevant googled links and waste my time.
Cutting the budget by 50% and increasing taxes simultaneously still won't solve the current problems.
Actually, that would fix the US government deficit problem and go a long way towards fixing the US government liability problem. Not that it'll ever be on the table.
That last time it changed like this the planet changed from a snowball into a sauna bath
This is wrong. We aren't seeing the same changes that occurred during the Permian extinction. There's no massive volcanism inserting more than just vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The rest of your post is as a result, hysterical garbage.
I ran across this particular red herring with respect to Medicaid earlier today. And I have to say that a lot of people truly don't get it. All of the big budget items are going to need to be reduced significantly.
(I'm less worried about SS since it can easily be fixed and still is self funding
It's not self-funding in any sense (it started losing money in the "pay as you go" sense back in 2010). And if one considers actual liabilities of the program, it's probably been losing money by the far more realistic accounting viewpoint, since the 70s.
Keep in mind that Warren Buffet has a lot of unrealized equity gain. That greatly reduces his tax burden even if we take heed of his tax advice and raise taxes on the wealthy. And keep in mind the unspoken alternative: you think it's a great idea and implement it in a country with cheaper labor and more generous taxation policies.
The problem here is that you are comparing apples and oranges. Many of a household's expenses, particularly for vacations and entertainment, would instead be profit in a business.
Yet again, I'll ask for a source for this. Businesses don't get to just write off expenses as profit.
It wouldn't be an expense, because the business wouldn't be spending money on it. A family can spend much more on nonessentials than it saves. A business normally wouldn't be doing that (though I have heard of some failed businesses that used to throw great parties).
3PAR.
...looks like it was well-researched, and has some technology that fits well with HP's offerings. Though the company's lost money in recent years, it has plenty of assets to spare. In the current economy, with IT departments being held back, it's reasonable that a SAN company will see losses. Amazingly, last time I was unemployed, I lost money, too!
So did Autonomy, until HP needed to write off $11 billion in bad investments. And I see you didn't think about how much HP paid for either. Autonomy's problems wouldn't be an issue, if HP had paid far less for Autonomy than it did. The same goes for 3PAR.
I think you continue to underestimate the damage and difficulty of reversing problems caused by climate change and vastly overestimate the costs.
That's your opinion. Give a reason why I should share your opinion.
The rise in temperature and sea level rise itself are small problems compared to ocean acidification and methane clathrate release.
No one has demonstrated that ocean acidification is a problem. And those methane clathrates recently had a hundred meters more water poured on them. Higher pressure means more stable clathrates.
Not every rock on the planet is the same as every other. Considering that I was detecting iron from the fly ash contacting pipework on the way out I'd say the threshold was low enough to spit in the face of this stupid "fly ash is nuclear waste too" from Alex Gabbard and a pile of parrots that know even less about coal than Alex Gabbard.
So two obvious things. First, that's not a low concentration of iron unless your pipes just happen to have almost no iron in them. Second, when did you actually look for uranium in your fly ash? You state here that you were looking for iron not uranium.
I also wonder, if you even have a clue about what you are speaking of. If you did your "iron detection" with the same half-assed ignorance with which you approach the current topic, then it doesn't mean anything that you didn't detect uranium.
I'd link to a news article from the day before yesterday about the real problem with people dying while mining coal instead of this failed PR bullshit inventing a fake problem, but there's probably no point since they may even be a new Chinese coal mine accident in the news today. Coal kills real people in real ways but the Alex Gabbard "terrorists could build a nuclear weapon out of fly ash" bullshit is something not even SF writers could get away with.
Please keep in mind you were off by 11 orders of magnitude last time you made any sort of concrete claim about the subject.
One wonders why the Republicans haven't been the ones pushing publicly funded broadband. They are missing quite a bit of their base out in the trailer parks.
There's the obvious disconnect between alleged cause and alleged effort. Why should publicly funded broadband be politically useful to the Republicans, even if it did help people who were more Republican than Democrat (which I might add is a dubious proposition on its own)? Why should someone who is bitterly complaining about taxes and such, be happy because someone throws them modestly cheaper broadband as a sop?
Instead this sounds like more of the idiocy from people who can't be bothered to understand the positions and beliefs of people who don't share their ideological preferences.
Do you expect that every cent of a company's income will go toward operating expenses,
The problem here is that you are comparing apples and oranges. Many of a household's expenses, particularly for vacations and entertainment, would instead be profit in a business.
There's no sign that HP's going to make poorly-researched acquisitions next year. They didn't in 2010, either.
Maybe jobs are growing faster in the 3rd world, or the various dictatorships?
Well, guess where the people actually are? As I indicated, there's a lot of growth in jobs globally and a lot of growth in wages. Not everyone lives in places that are deliberately destroying their ability to employ people.
The problem with that attitude is the many of the effects of global warming are not reversible on any human time scale. Once we see what happens we can't really fix it. On top of that even once we get to net zero CO2 emissions it will take 20-40 years for actual temperatures to catch up to the forcing and reach a new equilibrium.
It's worth noting that this hasn't been shown to be an actual problem.
Would the average person even receive any of the additional wealth generated by ignoring global warming?
Given that they already do, even in countries that are imposing costs on themselves by attempting to address AGW, why would the answer be anything other than "yes"?
I can't help you with your inability to find indications that AGW is better addressed now. Many studies are available for your perusal. I'm sure others have tried to lead you to water...
And I have perused them. The studies that aren't in error or outright deceptive, don't show this alleged urgency. For example, neither of the two studies mentioned in this story which allege considerable temperature increase by 2100, have been tested again real temperature data that extends more than a century and a half (and of that data, global mean temperature hasn't been measured directly from before the late 1970s). That is because there is no such data from before the 19th century. So they are untested models outside of the modern age. And we're supposed to just buy the extrapolation to almost 90 years from now?
Similarly, "extreme weather" is another rationalization for acting on global warming. Here, there's some remarkable deception such a study on insurance claims (which does show that more damage claims from extreme weather events are being made) being used commonly as support. The only problem is that most of the study's effects can be explained by US flood insurance policy (which at the federal level currently encourages building in dangerous flood prone areas and leads to more damage claims from extreme weather events).
My view is that sure, these various studies can be considered our "best guess". But they're not at all good guesses. So it is foolish to make long term plans on the basis of inadequate studies. Since these studies generally indicate problems on or after 2100, it makes sense to pause a bit, collect more real data, before making decisions that can have profound negative impact on us.
So you want to continue imposing the externalities of AGW on everybody except the polluters.
What externalities? What's the cost that is imposed?
You can't avoid "intefering with the economy". We are the economy. Everything we do is "interference".
There is a huge difference between "interference" from us acting as normal agents in the economy and someone using a giant mallet of regulation and similar tools to tweak things at the macroscopic level.
Cool - show us the working with this crude calculation instead of just asserting an answer that appears to contradict what everyone else has observed./quote>
1 ton coal * 5*10^-5 tons U3O8/tons coal*0.85 tons natural uranium/tons U3O8*1.2 millisieverts/1 milligram ingested natural uranium/(80 nanosieverts/banana equivalent dose) = 640,000 banana equivalent units.
So..I was off by 15% due to ignoring the oxygen content of U3O8,, but otherwise correct.
For the record, none of the fly ash I looked at in the 1990s had detectable levels of uranium or throrium (using SEM backscatter) but I never looked at fly ash from US coal.
So? What's the detection threshold for SEM backscatter? I find it suspicious that you didn't detect anything given how common uranium and thorium are in the Earth's crust.
The TL;DR for my previous post, is that you are speaking of hundreds of thousands of tons of coal while my calculation indicates grams. That's 11 orders of magnitude difference between you and reality, assuming I didn't drop a zero or two in your favor in my calculation.
According to this page, a person would get a dose of roughly 0.2 millisieverts from inhaling a milligram of natural uranium or 1.2 millisieverts from ingesting said milligram of natural uranium. According to Wikipedia, the "Banana equivalent dose" is roughly 80 nanosieverts.
Wikipedia noted a coal mine in North Dakota which had 0.005% U3O8 by mass or 50 milligrams of uranium per ton of mined coal.
Crude calculation is that there appears to 750,000 banana equivalent units of radiation from natural uranium alone (not counting thorium!) per ton of this coal. So we would need to ingest a bit over 1 microton (or one gram!) of this coal in order to have that banana equivalent dose.
Why? Where is the evidence? Show me an economic case justifying emission reduction. And show me how you're going to get China and India to go along with it.
Worse, it's not even a step in the right direction, since it's a dead end: there's no logical way of hopping from natural gas to clean energy.
All you have to do is replace the plant. The rest of the infrastructure works just fine.
when the labor market is saturated and there are no jobs for the masses to do
The trend is towards "labor market saturation" meaning almost everyone has a job. Jobs are growing faster (and in the process paying better) than global population is.
If in a hundred years time we have a largely uninhabitable planet
"If". So why should we pay attention to your alleged concerns. Where' their basis in reality?
But let's suppose your conditional happens. At the least, we'd be have to afford more bomb shelters, food storage, and the other sort of apocalyptic infrastructure that helps more people survive these sorts of scenarios. And the people who end up dying anyway, would have a bit more wealth and a bit less poverty to enjoy in the decades before their deaths.
And to follow up, how do you propose we not "intefere with the economy"
Don't impose AGW mitigation at this time, including any sort of energy subsidy or penalties. While we're at it, we could also eliminate other interference like flood insurance issues in the US (which incidentally are routinely confused for AGW "extreme weather" effects) and ethanol subsidies. I'm for eliminating nuclear power liability subsidies, but one would need to reform litigation as well.
Slashdot Mirror
It is also well known that entering WWII spent the US out of the Great depression, war keynesianism that is.
The "war keynesianism" that reversed a lot of remarkably bad FDR policy such as ending most state enforced oligopolies and curbing the granted powers to labor unions? That "war keynesianism"?
It's interesting how often "well known" facts aren't actually facts, but myths embraced by one group or another. What I mentioned above is another "well known" interpretation of what happened in the Second World War. A third "well known" interpretation is AC's observation that in the postwar period, the US had the only intact developed world economy.
And you also commit the error of confusing short term economic activity with long term economic benefit.
Military does also not interfere with the normal market as citizens tend to buy no tanks.
Only if you ignore that wealth, resources, and labor devoted to the building of tanks isn't then available for the normal market. A bit of steel put in a tank could have been used for a bridge. An engineer who designs a new tank could have designed a new car for the private world. The wealth from taxes that went to developing, constructing, and maintaining those tanks could have been used for all sorts of private sector activities. The value derived from the tank may well outweigh the alternative uses for what went into that tank. But it would be foolish to ignore that there are opportunity costs for that tank.
This doesn't demonstrate that ocean acidification is a problem?
Why would you think it does? There's idle and unfounded speculation in the story that acidification from the Permian extinction is equivalent to what happens from AGW. One would expect idle speculation even when the analogy is completely spurious.
I can't make you share my opinion, you have access to all the same facts as me, you're just reckless. I have similar conversations with text n' drivers.
As do I. They tend to dump a couple of irrelevant googled links and waste my time.
Cutting the budget by 50% and increasing taxes simultaneously still won't solve the current problems.
Actually, that would fix the US government deficit problem and go a long way towards fixing the US government liability problem. Not that it'll ever be on the table.
That last time it changed like this the planet changed from a snowball into a sauna bath
This is wrong. We aren't seeing the same changes that occurred during the Permian extinction. There's no massive volcanism inserting more than just vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The rest of your post is as a result, hysterical garbage.
(I'm less worried about SS since it can easily be fixed and still is self funding
It's not self-funding in any sense (it started losing money in the "pay as you go" sense back in 2010). And if one considers actual liabilities of the program, it's probably been losing money by the far more realistic accounting viewpoint, since the 70s.
Keep in mind that Warren Buffet has a lot of unrealized equity gain. That greatly reduces his tax burden even if we take heed of his tax advice and raise taxes on the wealthy. And keep in mind the unspoken alternative: you think it's a great idea and implement it in a country with cheaper labor and more generous taxation policies.
The problem here is that you are comparing apples and oranges. Many of a household's expenses, particularly for vacations and entertainment, would instead be profit in a business.
Yet again, I'll ask for a source for this. Businesses don't get to just write off expenses as profit.
It wouldn't be an expense, because the business wouldn't be spending money on it. A family can spend much more on nonessentials than it saves. A business normally wouldn't be doing that (though I have heard of some failed businesses that used to throw great parties).
3PAR.
...looks like it was well-researched, and has some technology that fits well with HP's offerings. Though the company's lost money in recent years, it has plenty of assets to spare. In the current economy, with IT departments being held back, it's reasonable that a SAN company will see losses. Amazingly, last time I was unemployed, I lost money, too!
So did Autonomy, until HP needed to write off $11 billion in bad investments. And I see you didn't think about how much HP paid for either. Autonomy's problems wouldn't be an issue, if HP had paid far less for Autonomy than it did. The same goes for 3PAR.
I think you continue to underestimate the damage and difficulty of reversing problems caused by climate change and vastly overestimate the costs.
That's your opinion. Give a reason why I should share your opinion.
The rise in temperature and sea level rise itself are small problems compared to ocean acidification and methane clathrate release.
No one has demonstrated that ocean acidification is a problem. And those methane clathrates recently had a hundred meters more water poured on them. Higher pressure means more stable clathrates.
Not every rock on the planet is the same as every other. Considering that I was detecting iron from the fly ash contacting pipework on the way out I'd say the threshold was low enough to spit in the face of this stupid "fly ash is nuclear waste too" from Alex Gabbard and a pile of parrots that know even less about coal than Alex Gabbard.
So two obvious things. First, that's not a low concentration of iron unless your pipes just happen to have almost no iron in them. Second, when did you actually look for uranium in your fly ash? You state here that you were looking for iron not uranium.
I also wonder, if you even have a clue about what you are speaking of. If you did your "iron detection" with the same half-assed ignorance with which you approach the current topic, then it doesn't mean anything that you didn't detect uranium.
I'd link to a news article from the day before yesterday about the real problem with people dying while mining coal instead of this failed PR bullshit inventing a fake problem, but there's probably no point since they may even be a new Chinese coal mine accident in the news today. Coal kills real people in real ways but the Alex Gabbard "terrorists could build a nuclear weapon out of fly ash" bullshit is something not even SF writers could get away with.
Please keep in mind you were off by 11 orders of magnitude last time you made any sort of concrete claim about the subject.
One wonders why the Republicans haven't been the ones pushing publicly funded broadband. They are missing quite a bit of their base out in the trailer parks.
There's the obvious disconnect between alleged cause and alleged effort. Why should publicly funded broadband be politically useful to the Republicans, even if it did help people who were more Republican than Democrat (which I might add is a dubious proposition on its own)? Why should someone who is bitterly complaining about taxes and such, be happy because someone throws them modestly cheaper broadband as a sop?
Instead this sounds like more of the idiocy from people who can't be bothered to understand the positions and beliefs of people who don't share their ideological preferences.
You can't return years for wrongful imprisonment either. Nor the pain of being punished for something you didn't do.
Do you expect that every cent of a company's income will go toward operating expenses,
The problem here is that you are comparing apples and oranges. Many of a household's expenses, particularly for vacations and entertainment, would instead be profit in a business.
There's no sign that HP's going to make poorly-researched acquisitions next year. They didn't in 2010, either.
3PAR.
Really? Do I live on a different planet?
Well, I don't live on Planet Berkeley so yes.
Maybe jobs are growing faster in the 3rd world, or the various dictatorships?
Well, guess where the people actually are? As I indicated, there's a lot of growth in jobs globally and a lot of growth in wages. Not everyone lives in places that are deliberately destroying their ability to employ people.
The problem with that attitude is the many of the effects of global warming are not reversible on any human time scale. Once we see what happens we can't really fix it. On top of that even once we get to net zero CO2 emissions it will take 20-40 years for actual temperatures to catch up to the forcing and reach a new equilibrium.
It's worth noting that this hasn't been shown to be an actual problem.
Would the average person even receive any of the additional wealth generated by ignoring global warming?
Given that they already do, even in countries that are imposing costs on themselves by attempting to address AGW, why would the answer be anything other than "yes"?
I can't help you with your inability to find indications that AGW is better addressed now. Many studies are available for your perusal. I'm sure others have tried to lead you to water...
And I have perused them. The studies that aren't in error or outright deceptive, don't show this alleged urgency. For example, neither of the two studies mentioned in this story which allege considerable temperature increase by 2100, have been tested again real temperature data that extends more than a century and a half (and of that data, global mean temperature hasn't been measured directly from before the late 1970s). That is because there is no such data from before the 19th century. So they are untested models outside of the modern age. And we're supposed to just buy the extrapolation to almost 90 years from now?
Similarly, "extreme weather" is another rationalization for acting on global warming. Here, there's some remarkable deception such a study on insurance claims (which does show that more damage claims from extreme weather events are being made) being used commonly as support. The only problem is that most of the study's effects can be explained by US flood insurance policy (which at the federal level currently encourages building in dangerous flood prone areas and leads to more damage claims from extreme weather events).
My view is that sure, these various studies can be considered our "best guess". But they're not at all good guesses. So it is foolish to make long term plans on the basis of inadequate studies. Since these studies generally indicate problems on or after 2100, it makes sense to pause a bit, collect more real data, before making decisions that can have profound negative impact on us.
So you want to continue imposing the externalities of AGW on everybody except the polluters.
What externalities? What's the cost that is imposed?
You can't avoid "intefering with the economy". We are the economy. Everything we do is "interference".
There is a huge difference between "interference" from us acting as normal agents in the economy and someone using a giant mallet of regulation and similar tools to tweak things at the macroscopic level.
Cool - show us the working with this crude calculation instead of just asserting an answer that appears to contradict what everyone else has observed./quote> 1 ton coal * 5*10^-5 tons U3O8/tons coal*0.85 tons natural uranium/tons U3O8*1.2 millisieverts/1 milligram ingested natural uranium/(80 nanosieverts/banana equivalent dose) = 640,000 banana equivalent units.
So..I was off by 15% due to ignoring the oxygen content of U3O8,, but otherwise correct.
For the record, none of the fly ash I looked at in the 1990s had detectable levels of uranium or throrium (using SEM backscatter) but I never looked at fly ash from US coal.
So? What's the detection threshold for SEM backscatter? I find it suspicious that you didn't detect anything given how common uranium and thorium are in the Earth's crust.
The TL;DR for my previous post, is that you are speaking of hundreds of thousands of tons of coal while my calculation indicates grams. That's 11 orders of magnitude difference between you and reality, assuming I didn't drop a zero or two in your favor in my calculation.
According to this page, a person would get a dose of roughly 0.2 millisieverts from inhaling a milligram of natural uranium or 1.2 millisieverts from ingesting said milligram of natural uranium. According to Wikipedia, the "Banana equivalent dose" is roughly 80 nanosieverts.
Wikipedia noted a coal mine in North Dakota which had 0.005% U3O8 by mass or 50 milligrams of uranium per ton of mined coal.
Crude calculation is that there appears to 750,000 banana equivalent units of radiation from natural uranium alone (not counting thorium!) per ton of this coal. So we would need to ingest a bit over 1 microton (or one gram!) of this coal in order to have that banana equivalent dose.
We need to cut our emissions dramatically
Why? Where is the evidence? Show me an economic case justifying emission reduction. And show me how you're going to get China and India to go along with it.
Worse, it's not even a step in the right direction, since it's a dead end: there's no logical way of hopping from natural gas to clean energy.
All you have to do is replace the plant. The rest of the infrastructure works just fine.
when the labor market is saturated and there are no jobs for the masses to do
The trend is towards "labor market saturation" meaning almost everyone has a job. Jobs are growing faster (and in the process paying better) than global population is.
I think you've just described how 80% of the people who call themselves libertarians on slashdot see themselves.
So coming up with empty insults for your two minute hate is now called "thinking". What will they "think" of next!
If in a hundred years time we have a largely uninhabitable planet
"If". So why should we pay attention to your alleged concerns. Where' their basis in reality?
But let's suppose your conditional happens. At the least, we'd be have to afford more bomb shelters, food storage, and the other sort of apocalyptic infrastructure that helps more people survive these sorts of scenarios. And the people who end up dying anyway, would have a bit more wealth and a bit less poverty to enjoy in the decades before their deaths.
And to follow up, how do you propose we not "intefere with the economy"
Don't impose AGW mitigation at this time, including any sort of energy subsidy or penalties. While we're at it, we could also eliminate other interference like flood insurance issues in the US (which incidentally are routinely confused for AGW "extreme weather" effects) and ethanol subsidies. I'm for eliminating nuclear power liability subsidies, but one would need to reform litigation as well.
All the wealth in the world won't do you much good if the infrastructure behind our civilization can't be maintained.
Well, what infrastructure can't be maintained or moved? And how did it get built in the first place, if it's so expensive now?
As I see it, there's far more than enough wealth in the world to manage the modest cost of moving stuff that is threatened by the effects of AGW.