Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I fully believe in man-made climate change

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/using-ipcc-defeat-un-climate-agenda/

https://fee.org/articles/the-costs-of-hysteria/#0

Yes. You are pretty well Brain Washed.

The second article doesn't seem to really make sense. The author says:And yet, he fails to provide any evidence that suggests the failure of the TPP deal would result in a loss of $22tn dollars, which is about 30% of our current global GDP. The fact that we stand to gain $3tn dollars from taking action, like in this trade deal, does not make it the same if we are still making a net loss of $19tn.

Nor do the economic figures account for the immense loss of life, livelihoods, and damage to ecosystems the world over that climate change is predicted to, and in fact is already starting to cause. I don't believe that's threatened by a TPP deal either.

In short his comparison seems disingenuine, if not down right ridiculous.

As for the first article, there is a recent 2016 study from LSE that does what the author tries to but in a peer-reviewed journal. And it finds the following:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2972
Or rather, supports the 2C goal that the Paris Climate Accords have suggested.

(Interestingly, another study from Stanford tackles this from the angle of economic productivity as affected by climate, and finds that unmitigated warming will reduce global incomes by 23%, ouch.)

However, neither of these articles appear to account for the financial gains that are to be had from mitigitating climate change by investing in renewable energies. Which a recent IFC study, in terms of the Paris Climate Agreement, reports as offering $23 trillion in investment opportunities (excluding the US because, y'know, they quit).

Which would make our net loss like $0. But don't touch my clean coal.

I find this point, to be really funny. When talking about a trade deal, he is speaking abstractly and is just trying to note the lack of climate change damages. Murphy does not even support the TPP and its a loss of 22 trillion over a 50 or 100 year period. The economic figures are meant to account for all of those things. The IPCC, the leading source on climate change, produces the statistics to represent the "social cost" of climate change. The TPP is a really shitty example perhaps NAFTA would be better. NAFTA has increased trade between Mexico and in the US drastically and over a 50-year time horizon would probably have a 20 trillion dollar effect on GDP. It is funny that you think a single study outweighs the IPCC and over ten studies cited by Murphy. Regardless, you are completely misrepresenting the study. Murphy and the study are looking at two different things. The study even noted this in its header:



Your study is analyzing asset values rather than effect on GDP. And the effect on Global Assets seems quite nominal,



So, climate change regulation seems to make investment less risky by about 0.2 percent. The effect on global GDP matters far more than the risk on investment especially considering how nominal that risk is. You are either being dishonest or do not understand basic economic language.

The articles cited do account for the gains. The articles are using data directly out of the International Panel of Climate Change. The IPCC is the most credible source on climate change in the world. Did you even read it?

https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/brainwash.gif

Originally posted by Flyattractor
https://tctechcrunch2011.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/brainwash.gif



How am I brainwashed?

https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/400x/63568061/you-drank-the-kool-aid-never-drink-the-kool-aid.jpg

Originally posted by Flyattractor
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/400x/63568061/you-drank-the-kool-aid-never-drink-the-kool-aid.jpg

Care to clarify?

http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/more-demo-kool.jpg

Originally posted by Flyattractor
http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/more-demo-kool.jpg

Insightful as always Flyattractor. Especially insightful given the fact that I am probably more right then you are.

http://www.madaboutmemes.com/uploads/memes/538.png

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The articles cited do account for the gains. The articles are using data directly out of the International Panel of Climate Change. The IPCC is the most credible source on climate change in the world. Did you even read it?

So how large of a problem do you think man made climate change is? I've always thought we've probably had some impact,but not as drastic as some try to claim.

Originally posted by Surtur
So how large of a problem do you think man made climate change is? I've always thought we've probably had some impact,but not as drastic as some try to claim.

I tend to be on the side of those advocating for man-made climate change. I just think we need to run a cost-benefit analysis. And as shown in the articles above, regulation and taxation have a more deleterious effect than climate change does.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I tend to be on the side of those advocating for man-made climate change. I just think we need to run a cost-benefit analysis. And as shown in the articles above, regulation and taxation have a more deleterious effect than climate change does.

Well I get thinking we have an impact, but how large of an impact do you think we have had?

Originally posted by Surtur
Well I get thinking we have an impact, but how large of an impact do you think we have had?

I would wager we are the ones who are principally responsible due to the anomalistic nature of this cycle.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
I would wager we are the ones who are principally responsible due to the anomalistic nature of this cycle.

Interesting, and if the cost effectiveness thing is true it seems the best thing to do now is merely just strive to eventually create better ways of doing things that do not impact the climate as much, as opposed to trying to hamper certain ways of doing things now.

Originally posted by Surtur
Interesting, and if the cost effectiveness thing is true it seems the best thing to do now is merely just strive to eventually create better ways of doing things that do not impact the climate as much, as opposed to trying to hamper certain ways of doing things now.

My thoughts exactly. End the wars, try to convert to electric cars, and support renewable energy when possible. Also, the advent of the driverless cars should severely decrease traffic which would also massively reduce C02 emissions.

And also don't forget to cut back on Sandwich Production.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
My thoughts exactly. End the wars, try to convert to electric cars, and support renewable energy when possible. Also, the advent of the driverless cars should severely decrease traffic which would also massively reduce C02 emissions.

Speaking of electric cars, this is ridiculous:

LAPD spent millions on 'green' electric BMWs used for joyrides to nail salons, day lunches: report

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
My thoughts exactly. End the wars, try to convert to electric cars, and support renewable energy when possible. Also, the advent of the driverless cars should severely decrease traffic which would also massively reduce C02 emissions. The free market has no responsibility to public welfare, it's only concern is profit. So without regulation, the public is susceptible to any number of cost-cutting measures that corporations deem fit regardless of their impact on the environment. Toxic waste in rivers, factories emitting greenhouse gases at alarming rates, fertilizers mixing with fresh water etc... Without regulation, we'll keep eating away at our life-support systems until nothing is left

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
As the articles linked above show, even if we account for those damages the damages caused by regulation are greater. But of course, the corporations have an incentive to care for the environment if their consumers do. First of all, regulation is not a one-note factor that can be defined in any single way. If the current regulations aren't working and are harmful then there are always different, better regulations that can be innovated, devised and implemented.

Secondly, when it comes to regulation the worst case scenario are financial and economic damages. That perhaps certain regulations may hamper the productivity of business or impede corporate activity in the Americas. In my opinion when we evaluate the alternative, which is a hostile uninhabitable dystopian wasteland where survival is a struggle and everyday is a Hunger Games competition for drinkable water, I think that risking financial damages is worth it.

And lastly, the only customers who care about the environment when spending money are those with the luxury to do so. There may be some people who shop at Whole Foods, but a vast majority of people go for Walmart or McDonalds. Corporations are going to continue being entirely profit-motivated because it is their nature, and the customers are going to be too late in caring about the environment. Because we as humans don't spring into action until something directly impacts us and becomes a tangible reality.

By the time Global Warming becomes a tangible reality it's too late. So that's the flaw in your Capitalistic free market philosophy IMO

That is what causes Drought. Poor Bureaucratic Policies.

Whoodafunk!?

It seems pretty simple to me. Carbon emissions are a negative consequence of market activity that we don't like. Therefore, a pigovian carbon tax set at a high enough rate should spur on markets to find out solutions and make adjustments on their own, for the most part.

Now, both of the articles posted do indeed hammer home the point that such a tax will have profound economic implications. But I see little attention given to potential offsets. A carbon tax could be a weapon to massively cut payroll or corporate taxes, both of which have a negative impact on economic growth, particularly the latter.

Originally posted by lazybones
It seems pretty simple to me. Carbon emissions are a negative consequence of market activity that we don't like. Therefore, a pigovian carbon tax set at a high enough rate should spur on markets to find out solutions and make adjustments on their own, for the most part.

Now, both of the articles posted do indeed hammer home the point that such a tax will have profound economic implications. But I see little attention given to potential offsets. A carbon tax could be a weapon to massively cut payroll or corporate taxes, both of which have a negative impact on economic growth, particularly the latter. Good point

Originally posted by lazybones
It seems pretty simple to me. Carbon emissions are a negative consequence of market activity that we don't like. Therefore, a pigovian carbon tax set at a high enough rate should spur on markets to find out solutions and make adjustments on their own, for the most part.

Now, both of the articles posted do indeed hammer home the point that such a tax will have profound economic implications. But I see little attention given to potential offsets. A carbon tax could be a weapon to massively cut payroll or corporate taxes, both of which have a negative impact on economic growth, particularly the latter.

Well they would not cut payroll taxes as those go to Medicare Part D and Social Security. I honestly doubt the state would cut taxes to balance out the effects. If we assume a reshuffling in the tax code takes place we would have to gauge the effects of the new tax code on economic growth and compare to the effects of environmental damages. It is definitely an interesting idea. Luckily, Bob Murphy also conducted a study on the exact idea of a revenue neutral carbon tax. Finding,

Well, the IPCC study in question did not even refer to a carbon tax. They referred to any action in the form of trade caps, taxes, or regulations and performed an analysis of the economic damages.

Of course, there will be a switch to energy, but the question is whether economic compliance costs of a switch are greater then the environmental costs.

No, because they both can be compared. In economics there is something known as social cost. We can compare the social costs to the economic ones to find cost/benefit.

Or if the Cost of an Abortion is more then Raising a Child!

Coat Hanger and a Bucket. Pretty Darn Cheap and Democrat Approved!

Because Science!

You got a prob with dead babies all of a sudden?

Seems that SCIENCE could prove that Pollution could SAVE HUMANITY!!!!!!???

QViI6-zr8io

Originally posted by Flyattractor
You got a prob with dead babies all of a sudden?

Just want to tell all you people that believe in man-made global warming..........

https://media.giphy.com/media/EFM2FCmavBD1u/giphy.gif

For 30 years or more these so called scientists have been making predictions about global warming and when none of them happen they just move the goal posts. Idiot Al Gore has made a fortune on a MYTH called global warming.

But but, that TV AINT PLUGGED IN!!!!!!!!