Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DAMN, there's so much snow in Calgary...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Capitalism t isn't scaled against regulation. Capitalism is just the economic structure in which most economic entities are privately owned.

    Another very common misconception is that a "free market" is the same thing as a "perfect market".

    A perfect market is the economic holy grail. It provides the most utility to society.

    Unfortunately, a perfect market is only a thought exercise for now, since it's conditions aren't completely met anywhere in society.

    Free markets very rarely become perfect markets, and in fact, there are many market failures which are very well documented. Regulation is put in place to help real world markets approach perfect markets.

    Ultimately I believe the goal of economics, and what I think the principles behind capitalism are based on, is to align the individual's incentives with the well being of society.
    "Bruno?
    Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
    He's terrible."

    -Superjudge, 7/23

    Hope you're wrong.

    Comment


    • #62
      It's quite sad watching "enlightenment"... You are doing it all wrong, this is not basis of intelligent discussion, especially if you are calling Matt dumb guy from stone age who's able to comprehend only basketball video... Im not going to reveal which side I support because it's pointless as this discussion should end because it looks like this is very sensitive topic for you guys....

      Btw, most of us have diplomas here, it's 21st century + in fact diploma does not represent your intelligence, just saying
      Official Pope of the Raptors sponsored by MLSE.

      Comment


      • #63
        I have no idea where anything related to Communism came from ...

        Comment


        • #64
          RandomGuy wrote: View Post
          It's quite sad watching "enlightenment"... You are doing it all wrong, this is not basis of intelligent discussion, especially if you are calling Matt dumb guy from stone age who's able to comprehend only basketball video... Im not going to reveal which side I support because it's pointless as this discussion should end because it looks like this is very sensitive topic for you guys....

          Btw, most of us have diplomas here, it's 21st century + in fact diploma does not represent your intelligence, just saying
          I actually am not passionate about the topic itself. My passion lies in arriving at why those pushing the issue are so extreme in their stance when the science is still very much debatable. It isn't about my opinions and research because I'm not a scientist. There are very credible people in the field who are skeptics and from my experiences in the markets the majority are often wrong so I tend to listen to the minority very carefully.

          There is so much wrong in the world today when it comes to finding the truth and the topic of climate change merely highlights it, at least for me.

          Comment


          • #65
            RandomGuy wrote: View Post
            It's quite sad watching "enlightenment"... You are doing it all wrong, this is not basis of intelligent discussion, especially if you are calling Matt dumb guy from stone age who's able to comprehend only basketball video... Im not going to reveal which side I support because it's pointless as this discussion should end because it looks like this is very sensitive topic for you guys....
            I didn't call Matt dumb. His arguments against science as a whole is what I mean about stone age, pre-science, mentality. Before, when he was just arguing about climate change I did in fact approach the subject seriously. Now with his mentality that we are all socialist/communist science worshippers, and that science is wrong because its been wrong before, I fear there is no argument to be had here anymore. His 'science' and his 'economic theory' are all out of whack and I don't care to change them; I'd prefer to ridicule them.
            The Baltic Beast is unstoppable!

            Comment


            • #66
              stooley wrote: View Post
              Capitalism t isn't scaled against regulation. Capitalism is just the economic structure in which most economic entities are privately owned.

              Another very common misconception is that a "free market" is the same thing as a "perfect market".

              A perfect market is the economic holy grail. It provides the most utility to society.

              Unfortunately, a perfect market is only a thought exercise for now, since it's conditions aren't completely met anywhere in society.

              Free markets very rarely become perfect markets, and in fact, there are many market failures which are very well documented. Regulation is put in place to help real world markets approach perfect markets.

              Ultimately I believe the goal of economics, and what I think the principles behind capitalism are based on, is to align the individual's incentives with the well being of society.
              I agree with all of this.

              I would add capitalism also sees everyone playing by the same set of rules and laws and those in violation of said rules and laws are held accountable. That doesn't happen today and is fuelling an undercurrent of resentment and uprising throughout the world.

              Comment


              • #67
                enlightenment wrote: View Post
                I didn't call Matt dumb. His arguments against science as a whole is what I mean about stone age, pre-science, mentality. Before, when he was just arguing about climate change I did in fact approach the subject seriously. Now with his mentality that we are all socialist/communist science worshippers, and that science is wrong because its been wrong before, I fear there is no argument to be had here anymore. His 'science' and his 'economic theory' are all out of whack and I don't care to change them; I'd prefer to ridicule them.
                I did not refer to anyone as a communist science worshiper.

                Now socialism is a major problem but that is not because of science, that is because of math.

                I've provided enough links and information to show the views I have on climate change is not 'my' science. There are credible people in the field who are skeptical. enlightenment's behaviour today merely reinforces the cult like furor surrounding this topic.

                Comment


                • #68
                  lol what the fuck happened to talking about the weather?

                  THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS.
                  The name's Bond, James Bond.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Also, there's a few things to clear up on climate change: I'm a believer that it is an issue, but I also believe that humanity has, for its entire history, been concerned with some kind of environmental, or energy related crisis, and we're still ok. So while I agree with some points made by that side, I don't agree with a lot of the alarmist and over-reactionary responses.

                    The effect of greenhouse gas on the amount of energy stored within the Earth's atmosphere is a pretty strong theory, and very well supported. Greenhouse gases reflect longer wave energy while having little effect on shorter wave energy. Since EMR emitted from the Sun is short-wave, the amount of energy entering the atmosphere remains constant. However, the long wave EMR being emitted by the Earth has a larger percentage reflected back into the atmosphere when the volume of green house gas is higher.

                    The problem with climatology is that it's an incredibly complex system, a little like the human body, but we can't perform controlled experiments on it. So, we don't know what the effect of a tiny change in average temperature across the globe will have on individual locations. A slight change in temperature, say, over Canadian prairies, could affect the way the entire system works. Polar vortexes may advance on different paths, slightly shifting the air currents, and very small changes compound until, hypothetically, Newfoundland becomes a warm, mild climate, while the arctic becomes even colder with larger ice sheets (or something else, I just made that example up).

                    So, I think people like Al Gore are completely full of BS. But I also think that significantly changing the composition of our atmosphere is a dangerous process that has to be considered.

                    Further, the economics behind carbon taxes are actually very sound and theoretically (and I would argue practically) re-align the private costs of performing polluting activities to equal the costs borne by the rest of society.
                    "Bruno?
                    Heh, if he is in the D-league still in a few years I will be surprised.
                    He's terrible."

                    -Superjudge, 7/23

                    Hope you're wrong.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
                      I did not refer to anyone as a communist science worshiper.

                      Now socialism is a major problem but that is not because of science, that is because of math.

                      I've provided enough links and information to show the views I have on climate change is not 'my' science. There are credible people in the field who are skeptical. enlightenment's behaviour today merely reinforces the cult like furor surrounding this topic.
                      Where's the science?

                      All I've seen are links to two pages and one video created by people with zero scientific credentials (that I can find), and two articles about legit scientists who have reservations about saying that climate change will be catastrophic...but neither of them have gone so far to state that this is an impossibility...and neither of them have published peer-reviewed studies that categorically deny that man-made climate change exists.
                      "Stop eating your sushi."
                      "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
                      "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
                      - Jack Armstrong

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Alright lads! Keep'r soft before this gets out of hand.

                        *basketball can't start soon enough*

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          stooley wrote: View Post
                          Also, there's a few things to clear up on climate change: I'm a believer that it is an issue, but I also believe that humanity has, for its entire history, been concerned with some kind of environmental, or energy related crisis, and we're still ok. So while I agree with some points made by that side, I don't agree with a lot of the alarmist and over-reactionary responses.

                          The effect of greenhouse gas on the amount of energy stored within the Earth's atmosphere is a pretty strong theory, and very well supported. Greenhouse gases reflect longer wave energy while having little effect on shorter wave energy. Since EMR emitted from the Sun is short-wave, the amount of energy entering the atmosphere remains constant. However, the long wave EMR being emitted by the Earth has a larger percentage reflected back into the atmosphere when the volume of green house gas is higher.

                          The problem with climatology is that it's an incredibly complex system, a little like the human body, but we can't perform controlled experiments on it. So, we don't know what the effect of a tiny change in average temperature across the globe will have on individual locations. A slight change in temperature, say, over Canadian prairies, could affect the way the entire system works. Polar vortexes may advance on different paths, slightly shifting the air currents, and very small changes compound until, hypothetically, Newfoundland becomes a warm, mild climate, while the arctic becomes even colder with larger ice sheets (or something else, I just made that example up).

                          So, I think people like Al Gore are completely full of BS. But I also think that significantly changing the composition of our atmosphere is a dangerous process that has to be considered.

                          Further, the economics behind carbon taxes are actually very sound and theoretically (and I would argue practically) re-align the private costs of performing polluting activities to equal the costs borne by the rest of society.
                          Forgot *mic drop*

                          Nailed it Stooley. Great post.
                          And that part about "re-aligning the private costs of performing polluting activities to equal the costs borne by the rest of society" was exactly what I was hoping to say earlier, but failed miserably to do so.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            mcHAPPY wrote:
                            You only need to look at enlightenment's and Joey's remarks earlier in the post to show the type of behaviour that has engulfed the climate change debate. enlightenment went full on bullying and discrediting. Joey acknowledged I was technically correct there is more ice but then brought up the type of ice as a rebuttal - sorry dude but there is either more ice or there is not... and there is.
                            I'm not sure how you can group my comments in with enlightenment. Nothing in my arguments have been "alarmist" or insulting or anything along those lines. But to your point, I tried to differentiate between Sea Ice and Continental Ice, if you choose to ignore that, that is fine. But that's on you. There IS a difference Matt.
                            Last edited by Joey; Sun Sep 28, 2014, 05:59 PM. Reason: OH NO! I edited instead od replied .... F*CK...., how do I go back?! Sorry Matt... :S

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              The statistical destruction of 97%

                              Dr. Richard Tol has been tweeting a statistical destruction of the "97% consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) by educating co-author Dana Nuccitelli as to why his "sample" is not representative.

                              "In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni" - Richard Tol



                              Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.



                              Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers.



                              Including "global" before "climate change", Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers.



                              Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.


                              As Dr. Tol so eloquently put it,

                              "[Dana] I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense." - Richard Tol



                              CV of Dr. Richard Tol: M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992); Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: "A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect"), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1997); Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992-2008); Visiting Researcher, Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, Canada (1994); Visiting researcher, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, United Kingdom (1995); Acting Programme Manager Quantitative Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1998-1999); Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (1998-2000); Board Member, Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University (2000-2006); Lead Author, IPCC (2001); Contributing Author and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007); Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal (2001-2006); Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2000-2008); Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University, Germany (2000-2006); Editor, Energy Economics Journal (2003-Present); Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute and Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University (2005-2006); Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland (2006-2011); Research Fellow, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (2007-2010); Associate Editor, Economics E-Journal (2007-Present); Adjunct Professor, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Ireland (2010-2011); Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (2008-Present); Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom (2012-Present)



                              http://www.populartechnology.net/201...ion-of-97.html

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Then there is this piece of work put out by NIPCC:


                                Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II is an independent, comprehensive, and authoritative report on the current state of climate science. It is the fourth in a series of scholarly reports produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), an international network of climate scientists sponsored by three nonprofit organizations: Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), and The Heartland Institute.

                                Previous volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series were published in 2008, 2009, and 2011.

                                Whereas the reports of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warn of a dangerous human effect on climate, NIPCC concludes the human effect is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.

                                http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/c...alscience.html


                                Who is NIPCC?

                                The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is what its name suggests: an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. Because we are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, we are able to look at evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ignores. Because we do not work for any governments, we are not biased toward the assumption that greater government activity is necessary.

                                ......


                                In June 2009, the first full NIPCC report was published by The Heartland Institute. It is titled Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). The new report, some 880 pages in length, is the most comprehensive critique of the IPCC's positions ever published. It lists 35 contributors and reviewers from 14 countries and presents in an appendix the names of 31,478 American scientists who have signed a petition saying "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

                                http://www.nipccreport.org/about/about.html

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X