Depends on the return on investment. Even if the return is positive, there may be more efficient ways to deploy that capital. At least until the technology matures enough to become competitive with alternatives. Of course, the glut of natural gas is pushing that point into the future right now.
I think the weight of evidence shows that corporations seeking profit will generally operate a more desirable system than a system run by government. I said that before, and I get it that you disagree.
To expand on my previous point, having a third party paying for something puts incentives in the wrong place, and you end up with a distorted market and out of control costs. Putting the government in charge to manage these things by fiat doesn't help (see Hayek's knowledge problem), and in fact, makes things worse.
I'm impressed that your are unable to equate "a third party [insurance company] executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties" with "a third party [government] executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties."
It's almost as impressive as your idea of "Tea Party myths."
No. I think the free rider problem is dwarfed by other issues that basically boil down to having a third party executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties.
That's a fair question, and I'd also ask what you meant by corporations "providing for our health."
Personally, I would expect that I'd probably have insurance for something unexpected like this. Or perhaps I'd simply keep a certain amount of cash on hand for unexpected medical issues, and use that to pay a doctor to set the broken arm, put on a cast, etc.
I would actually trust corporations a lot more than I would the government. In theory (if they haven't colluded with the government) the corporation actually has an incentive to satisfy my needs (I'm assuming we're talking about an insurance company). Of course, there are mitigating factors, like how much competition there is for my business, but it's gotta be better than a government monopoly (unless it's an actual private monopoly colluding with the government or something, at which point it's probably about the same).
Maximizing profit while satisfying consumers is generally a good thing. For a health care related example, take a look at the corrective eye surgery industry. The procedure is generally not covered by insurance, so there is competition both on quality and price.
No. Why would you think that? I countered your speculation with another speculation (though less speculative, I think), and then made a comment about how this sort of conversation tends to go.
I can't imagine how you could read any of my previous post as an ad hominem argument, so now I'm sure the rest of your arguments are wrong.:-P
I suppose you believe that I'd prefer to grow all of my food and make my clothes, too. Well, at least then I guess I'd have a use for a man made of straw.
Yeah, but so what? Americans die more often from other things, like car accidents. So it's probably underestimating the increase.
It's annoying that critics of the stupid way Americans pay for health insurance fall back on aggregated statistics to convince us to move to an even stupider way of paying for health care that seems to result in inferior outcomes.
Here:
"The cohort of Japanese men in the Honolulu Heart Program studies has a life expectancy that is longer than their counterparts in Japan, and Japan has the longest life expectancy of any country in the world."
Why are corporations the only alternative? Why wouldn't you prefer rely on yourself?
If you think that Americans live shorter lives than Europeans because of the respective health care systems, how do you explain that Japanese immigrants to America live longer than Japanese in Japan (who live longer than Europeans)?
Why would anyone think that the workers agree with whatever the company says? That makes no sense. Now, if the company is saying something that the owners don't agree with, then there's a problem.
That's nothing! When I mod, I usually oblige people who say things like, "I'll probably get modded down for this." I figure it's the least I can do. Then some grumpy meta-mod comes along and disagrees with me. Two against one, I say.
That's OK, I'll stop trying to get you to defend the original nonsense I replied to. It's clear you don't have an answer. Or can't follow a conversation. Either way...
I did read what you said, and it's true you didn't specify what you thought was going on right now as far as people trying to get rid of corruption.
The main theme of the last year has been increasing the size and role of government. Which is what a lot of the screaming is about. Was there something else you were thinking about? Because that seemed like the most obvious interpretation of your comment.
So your theory is that the US government giving incentives for companies to make loans and sell them off didn't contribute to problems? Especially when combined with the actions of the Fed. If your argument is that Fannie and Freddie weren't the sole cause, then I'm with you.
I don't know enough about Canadian law to comment on Canadian banks, but the meme that US banks were thoroughly deregulated is...delusional. In any case, as the GP pointed out, it was the US, through regulators and others (yes, including Fannie and Freddie!), that was encouraging the risky behavior of the banks.
Booms and busts are basically a natural thing in biology and economics. But that doesn't mean we need governments providing perverse incentives to make them worse.
So what you're saying is that we've got a lot of corruption...you don't elaborate, but I'm guessing (based on the types of things I've heard about, say, insurance companies) it's things like corporations lobbying and influencing the government that you were thinking about. And the solution is to make the government more powerful, and therefore make it even more important for those corporations to influence government?
So, what should we do about them taking our liberties?
Yes, I grew up in the LA smog in the 1980s. It was pretty bad back then. It's actually nothing like that now. I totally agree that we should focus on actual pollutants, and that in the US, at least, we've made a lot of progress. It just doesn't make sense to focus on CO2 in terms of pollution.
There are certainly limits to everything, but I don't think we're anywhere near it on CO2. Consider that greenhouse operators often add CO2 up to something like 1000ppm. That's more than twice what's in the atmosphere right now. Actually, I've seen studies that say that the oceans are absorbing the same fraction of CO2 as they have been previously, which argues that the oceans probably aren't getting saturated.
Water vapor precipitates out on a short cycle, especially when carried via weather patterns — and, with cloud formation, even has your vaunted negative feedback cycle (in isolation, at least). The cycle for removing CO2 is much longer and much more involved.
That's true, but there's still a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere doing a lot more to warm the planet than CO2. While it precipitates out, it also evaporates a lot into the atmosphere. And with respect to clouds, most models are not using them as a negative feedback.
Here [nasa.gov], knock yourself out. Plenty more where that came from.
Yes, the climate models have generally been available. It's more on the side of estimating current and past temperatures where the sharing has been especially lacking. This is important in order to judge if what's happening is really extraordinary or just another century in the life of the earth.
I know enough about science in general to be able to judge the approach, results, limitations, and (yes) politics outside my particular bailiwick (astrophysics, should you be curious. Credentials available upon request).
Perhaps, but IMHO you haven't shown it here. Credentials are a lot less interesting than the arguments presented. I don't have a background in "climate science", but I do in math, statistics and computer simulation. And I really don't find the evidence for anthropogenic climate change convincing.
Yes, you've pointed out that there is some uncertainty in the issues I presented. Which was pretty much my point.
Ocean acidification is really a misnomer. The pH is getting slightly lower, but still above neutral.
Yes, carbon is naturally sequestered in several ways. There are also natural sources, such as volcanoes that replenish it in the atmosphere. There's still not very much of it.
The net feedback in the models is very uncertain, especially due to the unknown feed backs associated with clouds. And since CO2 has been at least an order of magnitude higher than it is now, I think there's a lot of room to doubt the theory that CO2's feedback overwhelms other feedbacks is pretty shaky, no matter what the source of the CO2.
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its effect is dwarfed by the #1 GHG, water vapor.
Proxies can be useful, but only if we correctly understand the uncertainty involved.
Of course, as a backdrop to all of this is the obfuscation that's been revealed in climate science circles. The history of not sharing data, models (i.e., statistical) and computer code should at least suggest that we need to review what's already been done to make sure it's correct. A scientist refusing to share data because someone will look at it to see if the scientist made mistakes doesn't mean that he made mistakes, but it does mean that we should have less confidence in it than if he did share, and independent parties came to the same or similar conclusions.
As a parent, I do have skin in the game, and while I don't believe we're going to cause any sort of runaway climate change due to CO2, I'd rather my kids grow up in a warmer, rather than colder world. What's the 'correct' temperature, anyways?
My 'penchant for doing nothing' is only partly based on my respect and understanding of the scientific method. I don't believe that we're causing runaway climate change for similar reasons to not believing in homeopathy: the evidence for it just isn't there, no matter how passionately it's believed in by some. In addition to that, it's not at all clear to me that the consequences, even if we did significantly warm the planet, would be all negative.
You may have much lower standards for accepting scientific theories as truth, but you should at least recognize it when you do so.
I do accept that we'll never have the same sort of ability to test. That wasn't the point. The testing of pharmaceuticals is simply how we validate and verify that our guess about the effects are correct.
We need to do something in the place of that testing, and I'm claiming it hasn't happened anywhere near where I'm satisfied with it. In particular, I think these issues need some work:
Measuring changes in temperature that problematic in terms of accuracy and precision, even with modern instruments, let alone paleoclimate estimates based on proxy measurements. Not to mention the questionable manipulations done to those proxies.
Unvalidated (and possibly unvalidateable) models with huge uncertainties for very important aspects of the system they are modeling (e.g., clouds). These models are generally dominated by positive feedback, the hallmark of an unstable system. The runaway warming they predict doesn't seem to match what we know about the history or even current behavior of the climate.
Evidence of complex behavior on the part of the climate that suggests other, probably stronger influences on the system than CO2.
Historical evidence of temperature leading changes in CO2.
Of course, this is simply about the scientific question of whether or not we're causing the climate to change in dramatic ways. The cost benefit analysis regarding what to about it all is the job of politics in general, and politicians in particular, in order to balance the science, economics, morality, etc. of the policy regarding some topic, this one included.
If you think the so-called consensus regarding the current state of climate research is anything that would inspire confidence that remotely resembles a double blind clinical trial, then it's pretty clear that you're the one being a douche.
Slashdot Mirror
Now if only the study used anything remotely resembling "people's freely written statements" about what they believe.
Depends on the return on investment. Even if the return is positive, there may be more efficient ways to deploy that capital. At least until the technology matures enough to become competitive with alternatives. Of course, the glut of natural gas is pushing that point into the future right now.
As far as being profitable, does that include the impact of government subsidies (e.g., tax credits)?
I think the weight of evidence shows that corporations seeking profit will generally operate a more desirable system than a system run by government. I said that before, and I get it that you disagree.
To expand on my previous point, having a third party paying for something puts incentives in the wrong place, and you end up with a distorted market and out of control costs. Putting the government in charge to manage these things by fiat doesn't help (see Hayek's knowledge problem), and in fact, makes things worse.
I'm impressed that your are unable to equate "a third party [insurance company] executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties" with "a third party [government] executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties."
It's almost as impressive as your idea of "Tea Party myths."
No. I think the free rider problem is dwarfed by other issues that basically boil down to having a third party executing the payment for services rendered and received by two other parties.
That's a fair question, and I'd also ask what you meant by corporations "providing for our health."
Personally, I would expect that I'd probably have insurance for something unexpected like this. Or perhaps I'd simply keep a certain amount of cash on hand for unexpected medical issues, and use that to pay a doctor to set the broken arm, put on a cast, etc.
I would actually trust corporations a lot more than I would the government. In theory (if they haven't colluded with the government) the corporation actually has an incentive to satisfy my needs (I'm assuming we're talking about an insurance company). Of course, there are mitigating factors, like how much competition there is for my business, but it's gotta be better than a government monopoly (unless it's an actual private monopoly colluding with the government or something, at which point it's probably about the same).
Maximizing profit while satisfying consumers is generally a good thing. For a health care related example, take a look at the corrective eye surgery industry. The procedure is generally not covered by insurance, so there is competition both on quality and price.
No. Why would you think that? I countered your speculation with another speculation (though less speculative, I think), and then made a comment about how this sort of conversation tends to go.
I can't imagine how you could read any of my previous post as an ad hominem argument, so now I'm sure the rest of your arguments are wrong. :-P
Yes, in fact, Japanese > European, as far as life expectancy is concerned.
I suppose you believe that I'd prefer to grow all of my food and make my clothes, too. Well, at least then I guess I'd have a use for a man made of straw.
Yeah, but so what? Americans die more often from other things, like car accidents. So it's probably underestimating the increase.
It's annoying that critics of the stupid way Americans pay for health insurance fall back on aggregated statistics to convince us to move to an even stupider way of paying for health care that seems to result in inferior outcomes.
Here:
"The cohort of Japanese men in the Honolulu Heart Program studies has a life expectancy that is longer than their counterparts in Japan, and Japan has the longest life expectancy of any country in the world."
Why are corporations the only alternative? Why wouldn't you prefer rely on yourself?
If you think that Americans live shorter lives than Europeans because of the respective health care systems, how do you explain that Japanese immigrants to America live longer than Japanese in Japan (who live longer than Europeans)?
Why would anyone think that the workers agree with whatever the company says? That makes no sense. Now, if the company is saying something that the owners don't agree with, then there's a problem.
Yeah, but then you still have the web app that kicks off the wget. It's web apps all the way down!
That's nothing! When I mod, I usually oblige people who say things like, "I'll probably get modded down for this." I figure it's the least I can do. Then some grumpy meta-mod comes along and disagrees with me. Two against one, I say.
That's OK, I'll stop trying to get you to defend the original nonsense I replied to. It's clear you don't have an answer. Or can't follow a conversation. Either way...
I did read what you said, and it's true you didn't specify what you thought was going on right now as far as people trying to get rid of corruption.
The main theme of the last year has been increasing the size and role of government. Which is what a lot of the screaming is about. Was there something else you were thinking about? Because that seemed like the most obvious interpretation of your comment.
So your theory is that the US government giving incentives for companies to make loans and sell them off didn't contribute to problems? Especially when combined with the actions of the Fed. If your argument is that Fannie and Freddie weren't the sole cause, then I'm with you.
I don't know enough about Canadian law to comment on Canadian banks, but the meme that US banks were thoroughly deregulated is...delusional. In any case, as the GP pointed out, it was the US, through regulators and others (yes, including Fannie and Freddie!), that was encouraging the risky behavior of the banks.
Booms and busts are basically a natural thing in biology and economics. But that doesn't mean we need governments providing perverse incentives to make them worse.
So what you're saying is that we've got a lot of corruption...you don't elaborate, but I'm guessing (based on the types of things I've heard about, say, insurance companies) it's things like corporations lobbying and influencing the government that you were thinking about. And the solution is to make the government more powerful, and therefore make it even more important for those corporations to influence government?
So, what should we do about them taking our liberties?
Yes, I grew up in the LA smog in the 1980s. It was pretty bad back then. It's actually nothing like that now. I totally agree that we should focus on actual pollutants, and that in the US, at least, we've made a lot of progress. It just doesn't make sense to focus on CO2 in terms of pollution.
There are certainly limits to everything, but I don't think we're anywhere near it on CO2. Consider that greenhouse operators often add CO2 up to something like 1000ppm. That's more than twice what's in the atmosphere right now. Actually, I've seen studies that say that the oceans are absorbing the same fraction of CO2 as they have been previously, which argues that the oceans probably aren't getting saturated.
Water vapor precipitates out on a short cycle, especially when carried via weather patterns — and, with cloud formation, even has your vaunted negative feedback cycle (in isolation, at least). The cycle for removing CO2 is much longer and much more involved.
That's true, but there's still a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere doing a lot more to warm the planet than CO2. While it precipitates out, it also evaporates a lot into the atmosphere. And with respect to clouds, most models are not using them as a negative feedback.
Here [nasa.gov], knock yourself out. Plenty more where that came from.
Yes, the climate models have generally been available. It's more on the side of estimating current and past temperatures where the sharing has been especially lacking. This is important in order to judge if what's happening is really extraordinary or just another century in the life of the earth.
I know enough about science in general to be able to judge the approach, results, limitations, and (yes) politics outside my particular bailiwick (astrophysics, should you be curious. Credentials available upon request).
Perhaps, but IMHO you haven't shown it here. Credentials are a lot less interesting than the arguments presented. I don't have a background in "climate science", but I do in math, statistics and computer simulation. And I really don't find the evidence for anthropogenic climate change convincing.
Yes, you've pointed out that there is some uncertainty in the issues I presented. Which was pretty much my point.
Of course, as a backdrop to all of this is the obfuscation that's been revealed in climate science circles. The history of not sharing data, models (i.e., statistical) and computer code should at least suggest that we need to review what's already been done to make sure it's correct. A scientist refusing to share data because someone will look at it to see if the scientist made mistakes doesn't mean that he made mistakes, but it does mean that we should have less confidence in it than if he did share, and independent parties came to the same or similar conclusions.
As a parent, I do have skin in the game, and while I don't believe we're going to cause any sort of runaway climate change due to CO2, I'd rather my kids grow up in a warmer, rather than colder world. What's the 'correct' temperature, anyways?
My 'penchant for doing nothing' is only partly based on my respect and understanding of the scientific method. I don't believe that we're causing runaway climate change for similar reasons to not believing in homeopathy: the evidence for it just isn't there, no matter how passionately it's believed in by some. In addition to that, it's not at all clear to me that the consequences, even if we did significantly warm the planet, would be all negative.
You may have much lower standards for accepting scientific theories as truth, but you should at least recognize it when you do so.
I do accept that we'll never have the same sort of ability to test. That wasn't the point. The testing of pharmaceuticals is simply how we validate and verify that our guess about the effects are correct.
We need to do something in the place of that testing, and I'm claiming it hasn't happened anywhere near where I'm satisfied with it. In particular, I think these issues need some work:
Of course, this is simply about the scientific question of whether or not we're causing the climate to change in dramatic ways. The cost benefit analysis regarding what to about it all is the job of politics in general, and politicians in particular, in order to balance the science, economics, morality, etc. of the policy regarding some topic, this one included.
If you think the so-called consensus regarding the current state of climate research is anything that would inspire confidence that remotely resembles a double blind clinical trial, then it's pretty clear that you're the one being a douche.