- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Greenland & Antarctic ice loss
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:27 am to Tigah in the ATL
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:27 am to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
basic microeconomics says you are wrong to be optimistic
So, we can put you on the record for your support of Government Coercion to solve these climate issues?
2
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:29 am to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
You must be a pretty pessimistic person to think that only through coercion can the environment be saved.
basic microeconomics says you are wrong to be optimistic
actually overt coercion is not one the principle driving forces of microeconomics.
As usual, you are wrong.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:37 am to Champagne
quote:no
So, we can put you on the record for your support of Government Coercion to solve these climate issues?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:41 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
The answer to that depends on how much you'd like sea level to rise.
I don't think we have a choice as to what we want sea level to be.
It is whatever mother nature wants it, not what we want.
The idea that we can control the level of the seas is the height of arrogance.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:43 am to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
Since the board loves to post quasi-science, I will start posting the real stuff that comes out.
And then you link an article to Slate? Why not just cut out the middle-man and link directly to Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth website?
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 9:46 am
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:46 am to CptBengal
quote:Sorry, swing and a miss. See tragedy of the commons & prisoner's dilemma. Or do you not understand that the tragedy of the commons has been applied specifically to pollution for about 50 years?
actually overt coercion is not one the principle driving forces of microeconomics.
As usual, you are wrong.
Coercion means regulation or government-induced incentives in this context. The "principle driving forces of microeconomics" say it is required for consumption of common resources.
Can you understand that, or are you sticking with your stance?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:46 am to Bard
quote:use it to get to the study then.
And then you link an article to Slate?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:47 am to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
tragedy of the commons
the tragedy of the commons has nothing to do with coercion you moron.
quote:
Or do you not understand that the tragedy of the commons has been applied specifically to pollution for about 50 years?
Funny enough there was a study recently done that shows that the local population without centralized structure is actually BETTER at protecting the common interest in those scenarios.
You literally are too stupid to talk to...
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:49 am to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
use it to get to the study then.
Can you link the study telling us what the perfect climate is and exactly which sea level needs to be maintained?
TIA
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:50 am to BRL79
quote:
Hmm. While we're at it lets fill the Great Lakes back up with ice too. I guess mammoth farts were the culprit for that ice melting. Damn mammoths.
One of them had more ice coverage this year than ever before. It was basically frozen over except for a narrow channel where boats could pass. We need more farts up there this year dammit!
Posted on 9/3/14 at 9:51 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Why not just monetize CO2 pollution rights and have the market decide the best way to reduce emissions?
Because the government will have to determine what is acceptable levels, larger companies will buy up the rights to use these omissions from smaller companies and thus drive them out of the marketplace, prices on CO2 emissions will inflate, and the poorest will suffer as the income gap increases.
Which Republicans will be blamed for.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:09 am to CptBengal
quote:Sure it does. The typical libertarian solution to the tragedy of the commons is to privatize the commons. Which works great when the "commons" in your allegory is something like grazing land, or timber forests. It works less well when you're dealing with water, and pretty much not at all when dealing with the atmosphere. You can't privatize a fluid, because Brownian motion doesn't give two shits for your deed records.
the tragedy of the commons has nothing to do with coercion you moron
I tell you three times I tell you three times I tell you three times: There was no non-coercive solution to the problem of CFCs. In an alternate universe where we all lived under some silly anarcho-capitalist scheme out of a Molyneux podcast, the ozone layer would be gone. Because the harms were incredibly aggregated and removed, no individual CFC user would have had any incentive to give up their marginal manufacturing advantage.
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:19 am to Champagne
quote:To the extent that involves putting a price on atmospheric emissions with negative externalities, sure. If you think taxing atmospheric emissions makes me a Big Gummint Socialest, then I'm happy to join such Big Gummint Socialests as Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer, Tyler Cowen, Greg Mankiw, etc.
So, we can put you on the record for your support of Government Coercion to solve these climate issues?
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 10:20 am
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:23 am to doubleb
quote:
I don't think we have a choice as to what we want sea level to be.
It is whatever mother nature wants it, not what we want.
The idea that we can control the level of the seas is the height of arrogance.
The idea that CO2 does not affect the globe's temperature and/or that warmer temperatures do not melt ice is the height of ignorance and stupidity.
If science is arrogant then fine - I'll take that over being a moron any day.
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 10:24 am
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:23 am to Iosh
quote:. . . and to the extent that involves putting a price with negative externalities on atmospheric emissions?
To the extent that involves putting a price on atmospheric emissions with negative externalities
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:25 am to Iosh
quote:
atmospheric emissions with negative externalities, sure.
ok. how is CO2 a negative?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:27 am to CptBengal
quote:
actually overt coercion is not one the principle driving forces of microeconomics.
Nor is it the principle driving force being cap & trade. When the acid rain program was instituted no one got a gun stuck in their face - those who wanted to pollute more simply bought credits from those who figured out ways to pollute less, which drove the rest of the market to figure out ways to emit less.
The right likes to make believe that their issue is with how the problem of AGW is to be resolved. That's crap because every one of you reject every single proposal period. Why? Because you reject AGW to begin with. What is the fricking point of debating about potential solutions if you reject that the problem exists?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:27 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:because gov has freaked everything up that it has ever attempted. Second, Europe has tried it and there economy is hurting worse than the usa's, Australia had to do away with theirs.
Why not just monetize CO2 pollution rights and have the market decide the best way to reduce emissions?
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:28 am to CptBengal
Posted on 9/3/14 at 10:30 am to WeeWee
quote:
because gov has freaked everything up that it has ever attempted.
Dur! dee big gubment nanny state is toopeed! dose dum libruls gobment lovers toopeed! dur herdy her her dur!
(the acid rain cap&trade program was a resounding success)
This post was edited on 9/3/14 at 10:32 am
Page 4 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News