The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[Xist]

How dare they deny me data?!

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

If I get an equal share regardless, then my contribution is ZERO. Heck, might as well light some things on fire while you're doin nothing. Consider it a contribution to society because a bad idea killed quickly is better.


How do you value a non-renewable resource if the opportunity cost is infinite? It's a good question, but I don't think humanity is smart enough to grapple with it.



There's no need for such legislation to be so extreme. You implement very gradual tax increase over long periods of time, and announce years in advance what those increases will be, and the market will hardly notice. Combine that with international cooperation, and alternatives to fossil fuels becomes an inevitability.

What do you do with this tax revenue? It is the basic income fund for the world. Which is only a baseline. Not an equal cut of everything. Your income goes up from there by using skill and doing work. Why should a person listen to me when I ask them to not cut down all of the trees if they get nothing from all of the resources that I am consuming just because they come out of the ground somewhere else. There is no price paid for the actual resource. Only the cost of extraction

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

What do you do with this tax revenue? It is the basic income fund for the world. Which is only a baseline. Not an equal cut of everything. Your income goes up from there by using skill and doing work. Why should a person listen to me when I ask them to not cut down all of the trees if they get nothing from all of the resources that I am consuming just because they come out of the ground somewhere else. There is no price paid for the actual resource. Only the cost of extraction

I haven't written off the basic income argument entirely yet, but it seems the outcome of such a thing would be a much slower economy with more consolidation of wealth.

There would still be roughly the same number of people on the streets; perhaps more, once they blow through their basic income on self-destructive coping habits. Poor people aren't poor because they are necessarily oppressed, but because they have no meaning for living. A basic income doesn't give people meaning; it gives them dependency.

That said, those who make an effort to use their resources wisely and find purpose for existence would be much more likely to make wise use of a minimum income. Responsible people would know how best to allocate funds towards food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare, rather than the government deciding how best to provide each of those things. We could get rid of lots of wasteful government programs (housing for one).

Regarding the cost of resources; the universe has no concept of wealth. It's entirely relative to our own values, so it makes sense that the price of commodities is related to how much human time, effort, and ingenuity was spent to produce it.

There's no objective way to value a scarce resource other than the free market collectively (and subjectively) deciding. Should we put a tax on helium so we aren't wasting it in kids balloons? What is the appropriate tax? How do we know that would be appropriate? Is it wasteful to use helium in medical devices that save lives? What if there is some super useful, yet discovered purpose for helium in the future? What if we misvalue the worth of helium now (likely) for future purposes? What if in the future we're able to create whatever elements we want because we've mastered atomic manipulation and have more effectively harnessed the sun's power, rendering all minerals nearly valueless?

[sendler]

The big improvement from a basic income would come to women in the underdeveloped world where this would hopefully help them break their dependency on an abusive, male dominated system which forces high fertility rates. It only takes a couple grand per year to make an African woman independant for life.
.
Who's oil is it anyway? Just because you alone have the means to dig it up doesn't make it yours.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by sendler

The big improvement from a basic income would come to women in the underdeveloped world where this would hopefully help them break their dependency on an abusive, male dominated system which forces high fertility rates. It only takes a couple grand per year to make an African woman independant for life.

Who's oil is it anyway? Just because you alone have the means to dig it up doesn't make it yours.

I tend to agree with your premise, that fertility rates would decrease in Africa with a basic income (and basic education / access to contraceptives). I'm not up on African culture enough to know if women are regularly abused or dominated by oppressive men. More income might increase fertility too. Certainly better healthcare would increase infant (and mother) survivability.

Just because you alone built a house doesn't make it yours... I'm coming over for dinner and might stay the night.

If I do anything with my hands (and mind), the output of that action belongs to me unless I voluntarily forfeit a portion of that output. I must pay for infrastructure that allows me to be productive, such as roads, police, military protection, etc. Outside entities trying to gain that output by force are simple marauders, and violent resistance is justified. I will not Feel the Bern.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Easy, the planet started warming 14,000 years ago and hasn't stopped warming.

So, it's the sun, and it started 14,000 years ago?

Why has it gotten MUCH warmer since about 1850?

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The believers are obsessed that the suns radiant output only changes by 1% which is true and that radiance is the only thing that effects weather and climate.
ICON and GOLD satellites will confirm the effect of solar wind and the lack there of once and for all on the upper atmosphere.

But with china pumping out more CO2 than any one could have imagined and the sun going into a solar minimum we won't need no satellites to tell us if the sun effects climate.

Facts are facts, whether or not you "believe" in them.

You are right on one point: follow the money. The money leads to oil companies.

Who are now ADMITTING that humans are causing climate change. WHY would they do that?

[oil pan 4]

Well if the warming started about 1850 it wasn't man's fault.
We made some where around less than 1% of the CO2 we do today.
If the warming started because of man in 1850 and the tiny amount of CO2 released we should have all been dead some time between world war 2 and 20 year ago.
I never thought of it like that, good point.

The output of the sun only changes by 1% if you only look at it from the ground.

The facts have been manipulated by the global warming believer institutions so it's difficult to know what's true any more.
They have only been caught 3 times doing this. Basic criminology tells us if they got caught 3 times it has been on going and gotten away with at the very least dozens of times.
It's like if you have 3 speeding tickets, that is not the only 3 times you ever exceeded the speed limit, unless you are the unluckiest person in human history.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Well if the warming started about 1850 it wasn't man's fault.
We made some where around less than 1% of the CO2 we do today.
If the warming started because of man in 1850 and the tiny amount of CO2 released we should have all been dead some time between world war 2 and 20 year ago.
I never thought of it like that, good point.

The output of the sun only changes by 1% if you only look at it from the ground.

The facts have been manipulated by the global warming believer institutions so it's difficult to know what's true any more.
They have only been caught 3 times doing this. Basic criminology tells us if they got caught 3 times it has been on going and gotten away with at the very least dozens of times.

We started to burn fossil fuels around 1850, and that is what is causing the rapid changes in the climate.

How did scientists change the data?

Hint: they didn't.

[oil pan 4]

They got caught 3 times manipulating temperature data.
Just because you pretend likeit didn't happen doesn't change anything.
You would think if the planet was warming as fast as they say it would they would all work together to ensure there was no manipulation or even a hint of manipulation anywhere, ever.
When scientists get caught manipulating their own data the whole thing gets thrown out and they start all over.