Louisville Mojo: The Louisville Forums and Message Boards

page: ~1~ [2]

Author

Superfreakonomics

Messages 1 - 17

Shades of gray
msg local #310840

posted Sun Nov 1 7:44 pm	275 posts · tenured: aug '09	Delete Edit
What if you could fix within a week any and all warming we might be seeing, just by injecting Sulphur Dioxide in the upper atmosphere. Mount Pinatubo's eruption cooled our atmosphere by a full degree Fahrenheit, for a year. Would it damage someones Socialist agenda?

Shades of gray
msg local #310840

posted Mon Nov 2 10:39 am	275 posts · tenured: Aug '09	Delete Edit
Gato, You missed this one. What about it? What if there is a very simple fix that does not demand turning control of our energy production over to the UN, and bankrupting our economy? That would be a good thing, wouldn't it? If not, why not? The task is to save the world, is it not? Wouldn't that be a great thing to learn, that in fact it is not in that much danger, if at all?

tecoyah

msg local #229495

posted Mon Nov 2 2:06 pm	962 posts · tenured: Sep '07	Delete Edit
Yeah, makes perfect sense to pump more crap into the atmosphere to counter act the crap we are already putting there. All we would need to do is inject a couple billion tons every few years for....maybe the next...oh I don't know....FOREVER. Nevermind the unfortunate need to re-engineer every freakin' jet engine in existence to deal with the silly failure rate sulfur dioxide creates in turbines, the massive die offs of vegetation from the onslaught of acidic rainfall, the poisoning of water sources, and the damage to crops worldwide...I mean other than that, there are only five or six hundred reasons not to do it. More reasons not to Edited Mon Nov 2 @ 02:16 PM

Ilex

msg local #14944

posted Mon Nov 2 5:39 pm	21308 posts · tenured: Jul '04	Delete Edit
GEE! What a super idea. Let's treat the atmosphere that we depend on for oxygen as a chemistry experiment. That is not at all the single stupidest idea I've ever heard.

Shades of gray
msg local #310840

posted Mon Nov 2 5:44 pm	275 posts · tenured: Aug '09	Delete Edit
One would almost be tempted to believe that neither of you read the link, or that you spend large amounts of time a mile from the surface of the Earth. But that would be ridiculous, right? Let's just assume you HAVE read the link, and are responding to the self evident objection to your comments. What is your response?

Nynaeve
msg local #279551

posted Mon Nov 2 6:35 pm	87 posts · tenured: Sep '08	Delete Edit
I hate to post this, because I absolutely LOVED Freakonomics, but here you go.

Shades of gray
msg local #310840

posted Mon Nov 2 8:48 pm	275 posts · tenured: Aug '09	Delete Edit
My GOD, they are freaking comedians. Seriously, this made me laugh out loud. Consider this: The point is that a planet with increased CO2 and ever-increasing levels of sulphates in the stratosphere is not going to be the same as one without either. The problem is that we don't know more than roughly what such a planet would be like. The issues I listed above are the 'known unknowns' – things we know that we don't know (to quote a recent US defense secretary). These are issues that have been raised in existing (very preliminary) simulations. There would almost certainly be 'unknown unknowns' – things we don't yet know that we don't know. A great example of that was the creation of the Antarctic polar ozone hole as a function of the increased amount of CFCs which was not predicted by any model beforehand because the chemistry involved (heterogeneous reactions on the surface of polar stratospheric cloud particles) hadn't been thought about. There will very likely be 'unknown unknowns' to come under a standard business as usual scenario as well – another reason to avoid that too. You know what? The ENTIRETY--let me repeat--the ENTIRETY of the AGW cultists case rests on--drum roll please--FUCKING Climate models that they are here claiming can't include SO2. What. the. fuck. If they understand climate--and they are saying they do--then the stupid SOB's can model this. If they can't model it, then they don't understand climate, which is what the people who possess a modicum of intelligence and emotional distance from this have been claiming. RealClimate, by the way, is a partisan site which was created in reaction to Stephen Mcintyres salient and accurate critiques of the abuse of science that is the IPCC. The lot of them should be barred from labs for life, for the stupidity and unambiguously biased conclusions they are presenting as "truth". Bullshit. Here's the bottom line: I don't think we are getting hotter. I think we are getting cooler. The argument made by these ass-clowns is that WE CAN'T WAIT. Yes, their track record predicting things may be worse than chance. Scruffy the dog may be better qualified to bet the future. Yes, the timeframes may be so long that they could be completely, 100% wrong, and we would never know it. But we have to trust them. Well, this is a credible alternative, as is seeding clouds to decrease the solar radiation reaching the Earth. Last I checked, Paul Krugman was a partisan hack who has abandoned all pretense of having principles to serve as the main apologist for the Obama Administrations disastrous economic policies. Oh yes, like our President, Yasser Arafat, and Al Gore, he is a Nobel Laureate. That counts for double demerits. Any more, only complete morons, apparently, can attract the attention of the glue-sniffing idiots up in Scandinavia. Net, net: no one has addressed this yet. If you have, make it simple so I can understand. The SO2 is neither to be injected at surface level, nor injected prior to there actually being a problem. If there is no problem, then we don't do anything. Of course, that will leave our economy out of the hands of the UN. No doubt that is a problem for some. They can kiss my ass. Edited Mon Nov 2 @ 08:56 PM

rjr

msg local #251116

posted Mon Nov 2 10:25 pm	1218 posts · tenured: Feb '08	Delete Edit
Do you feel better now?

Shades of gray
msg local #310840

posted Tue Nov 3 8:15 am	275 posts · tenured: Aug '09	Delete Edit
We have double digit unemployement right now. We are going to see, within a year or two, serious inflation, and a massive devaluation of the dollar, which is going to create even worse economic trouble. If we add to this a MASSIVE and unnecessary new tax on energy production--which will be a de facto regressive tax on the entire American population--AND new restrictions on the 15% or so of our economy healthcare represents, WE WILL GET A DEPRESSION. Can you grasp that? It is a common facet of survivors of disasters that they went in assuming that they were safe, since they had always been safe in the past. You have led a comfortable life. All but a small fraction of Americans live better, birth to death, than most of the world. This breeds complacency. You foolishly assume that things will always be in the future the way they have always been in the past. Why? This is not how history works. Edited Tue Nov 3 @ 03:28 PM

Jean Valjean

msg local #131397

posted Wed Nov 4 3:25 pm	4260 posts · tenured: May '06	Delete Edit
We have double digit unemployement right now. We are going to see, within a year or two, serious inflation, and a massive devaluation of the dollar, which is going to create even worse economic trouble. Massive devaluation of the dollar will be helpful for paying back our foreign debt. Our lenders won't like it but tough shit. Also devaluation of the dollar will make it harder to buy imported goods. Less affordable goods means more savings (hopefully) and more purchases of domestic goods. Inflation will help people save more money since savings rates will be higher meaning we will be more likely to increase average family saving rather than average family credit card spending. Why do you think the Bush Administration allowed the dollar to fall during his presidency? Because it was a cheap way of managing national debt. And since we're all about free trade it was a de facto tariff on foreign imports.

Jean Valjean

msg local #131397

posted Wed Nov 4 3:27 pm	4260 posts · tenured: May '06	Delete Edit
If we add to this a MASSIVE and unnecessary new tax on energy production--which will be a de facto regressive tax on the entire American population--AND new restrictions on the 15% or so of our economy healthcare represents, WE WILL GET A DEPRESSION. Unlikely. A tax on energy is just as likely to encourage people to make their homes more energy efficient and to consume less energy. There is plenty of room to tighten our belts when it comes to our own behavior as regards to energy consumption.

Shades of gray
msg local #310840

posted Wed Nov 4 4:22 pm	275 posts · tenured: Aug '09	Delete Edit
Jean, Let's break this down piece by piece, shall we? I have time. I assume you have time. We can do this in another thread, if need be. First off, why have Populists--your people, presumably--historically insisted on counter-inflationary policy, typically through a demand that dollars be backed by gold or silver?

Jean Valjean

msg local #131397

posted Wed Nov 4 5:34 pm	4260 posts · tenured: May '06	Delete Edit
First off, why have Populists--your people, presumably--historically insisted on counter-inflationary policy, typically through a demand that dollars be backed by gold or silver? Why? So that money is what it is and rather than some abstract that fluctuates. Unfortunately there is not enough gold and silver on the planet to represent all the money. They've tried it with oil but that's had it's own problems. What's your point?

Shades of gray
msg local #310840

posted Wed Nov 4 6:00 pm	275 posts · tenured: Aug '09	Delete Edit
Do you understand even the rudiments of Economics? You know, the basics, like what inflation is, why it happens, and the effects it has on people? Weimar Republic? Zimbabwe?

Ultimaratio1

msg local #42673

posted Thu Nov 5 9:47 am	12945 posts · tenured: Mar '05	Delete Edit
We don't have double-digit unemployment right now. It may come, but not yet. Unemployment lags, so it will top out soon and steadily fall as the recovery progresses. Inflation is near zero for now. The future markets in long term bonds are assuming a continuing low inflation rate. The dollar's fall does not mean a devaluation in a dollar-based international finance system. It's a depreciation of the dollar index against some other leading currencies. The difference is that a falling dollar need not translate into higher prices - what can happen is that production shifts from higher cost areas (in dollars) to the USA, so you get import substitution, not simply a rise in the rpice of imported goods. You can make the Ford vehicle here in Louisville, instead of in Europe because we have a lot of unemployment, and until labor markets get tight several years into the recovery, there's little wage-cost push inflation. Not all costs can be passed along to consumers. It depends on markets. In oligopolistic markets like energy, if you impose a tax on producers, and keep track of their accounting (watch the transfer pricing, for example) you can take the tax out of their profits instead of out of consumers' pockets. The IRS and FBI are getting much more aggressive against the rich (see the indictments against the hedge fund criminals and the cheats who hide their funds in Switzerland) these days. As to superfreakonomics, there's some good stuff there, as in the previous work, but the point of the writing is to illustrate economic principles, not to discuss climate change. Both basic economics (supply curves slope up, demand curves slope down) and externalities beyond the scope of pure economics have to be taken into account in any response to the climate change issues.

Steppa

msg local #206963

posted Thu Nov 5 10:35 am	3564 posts · tenured: May '07	Delete Edit
the point of freakonomics is that any idiot can have an asshole and spout shit but only the assholes with some training and background in the subject should be given the right to spend money... thats how i see the horseshit that comes from taking these freaks seriously with my hard earned wages

Shades of gray
msg local #310840

posted Thu Nov 5 6:20 pm	275 posts · tenured: Aug '09	Delete Edit
UM: you have this soothing, avuncular quality about you, which no doubt makes you quite popular among the less critical Democrats here. What I don't understand is how we can spend $780 billion without inflation. We've only spent $200 billion. That is a lot of money to inject into an economy. Sooner or later, the signs will show. A dollar bill is a promissory note. It's value is a function of the perceived stability of the entity issuing it. As we approach bankruptcy through wild, absolutely psychotic spending, coupled with punitive taxation, that dollar will be worth less, both here and abroad. Much of the world is already diversifying away from the dollar into gold. India just spent a huge sum on a gold purchase. China is buying it too. Inflation hurts people on fixed incomes most. Its effects are voided or muted by owning things: houses, gold, properties. Their price can go up with the inflation. The people who are hurt are those who make the least, and own the least. Typically, prices go up far faster than their ability to keep up. You do remember the Carter era, don't you? How many of you remember 15% interest rates on homes? AGW doesn't exist. Period. It is a fabrication of a monied elite, supported by a compliant horde of unethical scientists, with the specific purpose of imposing global controls on the US economy. They have never made ANY predictions that proved valid. Frankly, I would have to do a scorecard, but my guess is their record is worse than a barking dogs would have been. To the precise extent we value our freedom, we need to oppose these stupid bills the Socialists are trying to shove down our throats on Capital Hill.

Messages 1 - 17 page: ~1~ [2]