[Steve_American]

The appalling neoclassical economics of climate change from heterodox economist by Steve Keen | Modern Money Lab

Prof. Keen explains much of what I've been saying.
1] Simplified assumptions are all obviously false.
2] No other discipline would allow false premises in proofs. The referees of peer reviewed papers would be ROFLMAO, and would reject it outright.
3] MS economists use the quadratic equation for everything. For climate change they ought to use the Logisitic or even the exponential equations.
4] Very few people understand the massive power of the exponential equation.
5] The so-called Nobel Prize for Economics is a bad joke. Nordhouse got one for what Prof. Keen calls the worst economics paper he has ever read, bar none.

.

[Truth To Power]

The appalling neoclassical economics of climate change from heterodox economist by Steve Keen | Modern Money Lab

Keen has unfortunately drunk the anti-fossil-fuel Kool-Aid. Quoting Hansen and going on about "tipping points" just marks him as an uninformed dittohead on th climate issue. It's supremely ironic because the exact same techniques of academic capture that neoclassical economists have used successfully for over a century have also been used by the AGW cult.

I try to warn fellow progressives not to get married to anti-CO2 nonscience because I am very much afraid that when it is conclusively debunked, which is getting closer every year, the left will be so demoralized and humiliated for having been so thoroughly suckered that they will just give up and let the privileged have their way.

[Steve_American]

Keen has unfortunately drunk the anti-fossil-fuel Kool-Aid. Quoting Hansen and going on about "tipping points" just marks him as an uninformed dittohead on th climate issue. It's supremely ironic because the exact same techniques of academic capture that neoclassical economists have used successfully for over a century have also been used by the AGW cult.

I try to warn fellow progressives not to get married to anti-CO2 nonscience because I am very much afraid that when it is conclusively debunked, which is getting closer every year, the left will be so demoralized and humiliated for having been so thoroughly suckered that they will just give up and let the privileged have their way.

You are just wrong on climate change.

[Tainari88]

Climate change is real. If you deny it? Lack of logic.

If I tell you do not drink that water and it looks dirty, smells bad and tastes bad....yet you do it anyway because you are ignoring what your senses are telling you that you should avoid consuming either a food or a drink that smells repulsive then who is to blame for the illness later eh? You are.

It does not take a genius to know that we are breathing dirty air in many cities, and dirty water we are drinking. Or the fact that if you go to public creeks, rivers and streams in most urban cities you are told to not drink the water directly from those places. They will make you sick. The water has to be treated. Simply because there is industrial waste, phosphorus, and chemicals in the water that never used to be there before the industrialization and use of waterways by huge corporations, like paper factories, meat packing plants, chemical spraying facilities, harsh chemicals used in bathroom cleaning, cars with anti freeze running into drainage systmes, and so on.

Those are just facts of living in modern societies. They are polluting what used to be safe.

If you do not believe it just get down on your knees and get cup from your kitchen and go to a parking lot. Wait for it to rain and go near the cars and stick the cup in the water that has a sheen of petrol and anti freeze or brake fluid in it before it hits the drainage system. Drink it and see if you get sick with it or not?

Then you can talk about how modern living does not create pollution that affects water quality and air quality and land quality. Because the truth is that it pollutes it all.

Acid rain is real, jet fuel affectng rain quality in the upper stratosphere is real and so are the carbon emissions of methane producing animals, and combustion engine vehicles.

If you think it has no effect. Prove it and go and breathe in the air in Beijing, for hours, and in New Delhi too, and drink that filthy water I mentioned. Gallons of it. See how good your digestive system feels.

[Truth To Power]

Climate change is real. If you deny it? Lack of logic.

Who has denied that climate changes? Talk about lack of logic...

If I tell you do not drink that water and it looks dirty, smells bad and tastes bad....yet you do it anyway because you are ignoring what your senses are telling you that you should avoid consuming either a food or a drink that smells repulsive then who is to blame for the illness later eh? You are.

What on earth does that have to do with CO2, which is colorless, odorless and tasteless, and cannot be detected by human senses in any plausible atmospheric concentration??

It does not take a genius to know that we are breathing dirty air in many cities, and dirty water we are drinking. Or the fact that if you go to public creeks, rivers and streams in most urban cities you are told to not drink the water directly from those places. They will make you sick. The water has to be treated. Simply because there is industrial waste, phosphorus, and chemicals in the water that never used to be there before the industrialization and use of waterways by huge corporations, like paper factories, meat packing plants, chemical spraying facilities, harsh chemicals used in bathroom cleaning, cars with anti freeze running into drainage systmes, and so on.

What does any of that have to do with CO2, which is plant food, necessary to life, and not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration?

Those are just facts of living in modern societies. They are polluting what used to be safe.

CO2 is not a pollutant, as it is not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration. Anti-CO2 hate propaganda is a distraction from real environmental (and economic) problems and their real solutions.

If you do not believe it just get down on your knees and get cup from your kitchen and go to a parking lot. Wait for it to rain and go near the cars and stick the cup in the water that has a sheen of petrol and anti freeze or brake fluid in it before it hits the drainage system. Drink it and see if you get sick with it or not?

How is any of that relevant to CO2?

Then you can talk about how modern living does not create pollution that affects water quality and air quality and land quality. Because the truth is that it pollutes it all.

Please present your evidence that CO2 is harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

Acid rain is real, jet fuel affectng rain quality in the upper stratosphere is real and so are the carbon emissions of methane producing animals, and combustion engine vehicles.

Being real is not the same as being a problem. Try to understand the difference.

If you think it has no effect. Prove it and go and breathe in the air in Beijing, for hours, and in New Delhi too, and drink that filthy water I mentioned. Gallons of it. See how good your digestive system feels.

Relevance to CO2? Of course not.

[Truth To Power]

You are just wrong on climate change.

No. I am right, and will continue to be proved right by actual physical events. Anti-fossil-fuel hysteria will be conclusively debunked before very many more years have passed. When that happens, I want you to remember our exchanges on the topic, and repent.

[Tainari88]

Who has denied that climate changes? Talk about lack of logic...

What on earth does that have to do with CO2, which is colorless, odorless and tasteless, and cannot be detected by human senses in any plausible atmospheric concentration??

What does any of that have to do with CO2, which is plant food, necessary to life, and not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration?

CO2 is not a pollutant, as it is not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration. Anti-CO2 hate propaganda is a distraction from real environmental (and economic) problems and their real solutions.

How is any of that relevant to CO2?

Please present your evidence that CO2 is harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

Being real is not the same as being a problem. Try to understand the difference.

Relevance to CO2? Of course not.

TTP do not play like you do not know how to think. You are a very intelligent man but you are attached to ideas that for me are erroneous.

You know CO2 exists in the atmosphere naturally. Everything on Earth has a natural origin. That is not in dispute. The dispute is about human activity that modifies natural elements, refine them and then use them without being fully conscious of the long term effects on the environment. The reason behind a lack of long term effects is very simple. Greed.

Capitalism has at its core greed. Modernity requires fuel. To get from point A to point B with speed. That is part of why horses no longer are the main transportation systems.

So why did the car industry choose combustible engines? Because of greed. They had a choice long ago to go for electric vehicles. They chose not to have it because fossil fuels were plentiful, cheaper initially and they could profit faster with less time for initial investment.

All pollution that is concentrated has its origins in seemingly an innocent and commonly used human product. But that is the key. Humans using the product and refining it in ways that are harmful for animals, plants and the natural balance of ecological dependency.

So? To think that there aren't any consequences to all this human activity is completely erroneous TTP.

Coca leaves have been used by indigenous Incans for millennia. It is good to combat fatigue due to high elevation sickness in the terraces of the Altiplano in Peru and Bolivia, etc. But the problem becomes when it is taken out of its natural leaf form and refined. It loses a natural digestive quality and become concentrated and then it is much deadlier and can be easily dangerous in large concentrated doses.

The same with refined sugar. Cane sugar in its natural format and if chewed and or just the first squeeze called in Puerto Rico and in other sugar cane producing nations in Spanish is called guarapo. If you drink it is has a lot of great minerals like copper, zinc, and magnesium among other minerals and vitamins. But if you refine sugar cane, boil it down and make it white crystals and granules? It becomes an empty concentrated calorie substance capable of preserving food and extending a long shelf life. It also hits the pancreas directly in human beings if drunk in liquid form and it induces over time diabetes among other diseases.

These examples are about how human beings modify and change something from nature that is not poisonous or bad for the body or environment and becomes a real problem due to a lack of studying the long terms effects and the need for greed instead.

Unless the entire system is redone to take into account human activity in the long term? You have serious problems.

That is common sense. It always will be.

[Steve_American]

No. I am right, and will continue to be proved right by actual physical events. Anti-fossil-fuel hysteria will be conclusively debunked before very many more years have passed. When that happens, I want you to remember our exchanges on the topic, and repent.

Lurkers, in the not many years that TtP wants us to wait to act, the window to save civilization from a collapse from ACC will be closed. By then ACC will have already tipped some tipping points, and so nature will be adding more GHGs and we will not be able to stop it.

If he lives long enough, he will be the one who will need to repent. I will if I'm wrong. He very likely will not be able to because he's in a cult or a paid troll.

[Truth To Power]

Lurkers, in the not many years that TtP wants us to wait to act, the window to save civilization from a collapse from ACC will be closed. By then ACC will have already tipped some tipping points, and so nature will be adding more GHGs and we will not be able to stop it.

That is nothing but absurd scaremongering.

If he lives long enough, he will be the one who will need to repent.

It is absolutely certain that I will be proved right by actual physical events.

I will if I'm wrong. He very likely will not be able to because he's in a cult or a paid troll.

I know I won't live long enough to be proved wrong. I am pretty sure I will live long enough to be proved right.

[Truth To Power]

TTP do not play like you do not know how to think. You are a very intelligent man but you are attached to ideas that for me are erroneous.

But are factually correct.

You know CO2 exists in the atmosphere naturally. Everything on Earth has a natural origin. That is not in dispute. The dispute is about human activity that modifies natural elements, refine them and then use them without being fully conscious of the long term effects on the environment. The reason behind a lack of long term effects is very simple. Greed.

The motive is irrelevant to the effects.

Capitalism has at its core greed. Modernity requires fuel. To get from point A to point B with speed. That is part of why horses no longer are the main transportation systems.

Horses could not support a modern economy.

So why did the car industry choose combustible engines? Because of greed. They had a choice long ago to go for electric vehicles. They chose not to have it because fossil fuels were plentiful, cheaper initially and they could profit faster with less time for initial investment.

IOW, gasoline was better.

All pollution that is concentrated has its origins in seemingly an innocent and commonly used human product. But that is the key. Humans using the product and refining it in ways that are harmful for animals, plants and the natural balance of ecological dependency.

There is no credible empirical evidence that CO2 is harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

So? To think that there aren't any consequences to all this human activity is completely erroneous TTP.

Which is why I never said or implied any such thing. The consequences of CO2 emissions just don't include a significant increase in the earth's surface temperature.

That is common sense. It always will be.

Anti-fossil-fuel hysteria can be called many things, but common sense is not one of them. And it never will be.

[Tainari88]

But are factually correct.

The motive is irrelevant to the effects.

Horses could not support a modern economy.

IOW, gasoline was better.

There is no credible empirical evidence that CO2 is harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

Which is why I never said or implied any such thing. The consequences of CO2 emissions just don't include a significant increase in the earth's surface temperature.

Anti-fossil-fuel hysteria can be called many things, but common sense is not one of them. And it never will be.

I know you think that all that pollution does not have an effect.

But it does.

I also think that humans are creative enough to find solutions that will work. But unless they get with it soon? The work is going to take longer, and be more intense and cost a much higher price in terms of time, energy and efforts.

The longer we live in denial the worst it is going to cost human civilization to try to find a better path out of the problem.

Denial is a serious problem. Living with denial is a very costly thing. Face up to problems.

If you truly believe that there is no effect then go and drink the water off the parking lot and make sure it is from the most polluted drainage system TTP. You believe that human effects do not influence water ways or air quality. Go to Beijing when they have alerts and your throat and eyes burn. Nothing is going on over there. Drink the filthy water.

If you refuse to answer that question. It means you know the truth but live in denial. Not a good thing.

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fue ... advantages

[Truth To Power]

I know you think that all that pollution does not have an effect.

What pollution? CO2 is not a pollutant, as it is not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

But it does.

No it doesn't.

The longer we live in denial the worst it is going to cost human civilization to try to find a better path out of the problem.

True. The problem just isn't CO2.

Denial is a serious problem. Living with denial is a very costly thing. Face up to problems.

If you truly believe that there is no effect then go and drink the water off the parking lot and make sure it is from the most polluted drainage system TTP. You believe that human effects do not influence water ways or air quality. Go to Beijing when they have alerts and your throat and eyes burn. Nothing is going on over there. Drink the filthy water.

Please explain how any of that is relevant to CO2.

If you refuse to answer that question.

You didn't ask a question.

It means you know the truth but live in denial. Not a good thing.

<yawn>

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fuels-dirty-facts#sec-disadvantages

Nonscience.

[Steve_American]

What pollution? CO2 is not a pollutant, as it is not harmful in any plausible atmospheric concentration.

No it doesn't.

True. The problem just isn't CO2.

Denial is a serious problem. Living with denial is a very costly thing. Face up to problems.

Please explain how any of that is relevant to CO2.

You didn't ask a question.

<yawn>

Nonscience.

It goes without say that IMHO, TtP is flatly wrong, and at best is in denial of the scientific facts, or he is a paid troll. In addition to trying to correct his mistaken view on climate change I have tried 2 other ways to convince him.
1] I pointed out that he and we can agree that the other side believes in or is duped by a conspiracy, while we both think that we believe in the truth.
. . . There si a gig difference between the 2 conspiracies. The one he believes in requires just about 200 to 500 conspirators and many more dupes or paid trolls.
. . . The one I believe in requires 10,000 conspirators and many more dupes or paid trolls.

Because the larger a conspiracy the more likely it is that it will fall apart and be exposed for what it is; it is far more likely that mine would have fallen apart, if it was really a conspiracy.

2] I pointed out that geologists have evidence in the earth's rocks that almost the entire surface was snow or ice covered down close to the equator 2 to 4 times in the deep past.
. . . If this was so then they need a way for the earth to break out of it. They think that in 10 to 30 million years volcanoes would have released enough CO2 into the air to make up 13% of the air (now it is 0.0421%), and this was enough to heat up the earth with the greenhouse effect to start melting the ice. Once it got started the darker water or rock would absorb more of the sun's heat/light and there would be a rapid melting of all or most of the snow and ice.

That 13% is needed, but then is enough to cause a greenhouse effect means that his claims that adding more GHGs to the air has almost no effect on the earth's temp is just wrong.

So far he has not conceded any of our/my points.

.

[Truth To Power]

1] I pointed out that he and we can agree that the other side believes in or is duped by a conspiracy, while we both think that we believe in the truth.
. . . There si a gig difference between the 2 conspiracies. The one he believes in requires just about 200 to 500 conspirators and many more dupes or paid trolls.
. . . The one I believe in requires 10,000 conspirators and many more dupes or paid trolls.

Those numbers are just made up. We know from the example of neoclassical economics that a scientific hoax can be perpetrated successfully for over a century by quite a small group of people with money and power. The "dupes" are often aware that it is a hoax, but they just go along with it because they know which side their bread is buttered on, and don't want to risk their careers for something as abstract as the truth.

Because the larger a conspiracy the more likely it is that it will fall apart and be exposed for what it is; it is far more likely that mine would have fallen apart, if it was really a conspiracy.

The CO2 narrative conspiracy did fall apart: the Climategate emails exposed it. The money and power brokers just papered over it.

2] I pointed out that geologists have evidence in the earth's rocks that almost the entire surface was snow or ice covered down close to the equator 2 to 4 times in the deep past.
. . . If this was so then they need a way for the earth to break out of it. They think that in 10 to 30 million years volcanoes would have released enough CO2 into the air to make up 13% of the air (now it is 0.0421%), and this was enough to heat up the earth with the greenhouse effect to start melting the ice. Once it got started the darker water or rock would absorb more of the sun's heat/light and there would be a rapid melting of all or most of the snow and ice.

That 13% is needed, but then is enough to cause a greenhouse effect means that his claims that adding more GHGs to the air has almost no effect on the earth's temp is just wrong.

<sigh> Don't you get it? Assuming your account of how snowball earth was thawed is accurate, your "argument" actually proves me right and you wrong: if it took 300 times the current level of CO2 just to nudge the thermometer above freezing at sea level in the near-absence of water vapor, now that water vapor is plentiful in the atmosphere, doubling, tripling, or quadrupling CO2 from the current level can't possibly have any significant effect on surface temperatures.

There are three positive feedback mechanisms that explain how the earth's temperature can swing from hothouse to snowball to hothouse and back again -- and although they do have synergistic effects on each other, all three are naturally limited:
1. Most importantly, the ice-albedo feedback, which is limited on the downside by 100% freezing to the equator and on the upside by the rapidly declining effect of insolation at high latitude;
2. Next most important, the water vapor feedback, which is limited on the downside by full condensation at temperatures below freezing and on the upside by increasing cloud cover (the latter effect explains why the earth has never heated to more than ~10C above current temperatures despite spending most of its history near that level);
3. Weakest by far, the ocean-CO2 feedback, which is limited on the downside by full freezing of the oceans and on the upside by the "greenhouse" effect of gases whose absorption spectra are saturated being logarithmic in their atmospheric concentration. The fact that this feedback is very much weaker than the other two is proved by the much greater correlation between CO2 and previous temperatures than succeeding ones in the paleoclimate record.

[Steve_American]

1] Those numbers are just made up. We know from the example of neoclassical economics that a scientific hoax can be perpetrated successfully for over a century by quite a small group of people with money and power. The "dupes" are often aware that it is a hoax, but they just go along with it because they know which side their bread is buttered on, and don't want to risk their careers for something as abstract as the truth.

2] The CO2 narrative conspiracy did fall apart: the Climategate emails exposed it. The money and power brokers just papered over it.

<sigh> 3]Don't you get it? Assuming your account of how snowball earth was thawed is accurate, your "argument" actually proves me right and you wrong: if it took 300 times the current level of CO2 just to nudge the thermometer above freezing at sea level in the near-absence of water vapor, now that water vapor is plentiful in the atmosphere, doubling, tripling, or quadrupling CO2 from the current level can't possibly have any significant effect on surface temperatures.

4] There are three positive feedback mechanisms that explain how the earth's temperature can swing from hothouse to snowball to hothouse and back again -- and although they do have synergistic effects on each other, all three are naturally limited:
1. Most importantly, the ice-albedo feedback, which is limited on the downside by 100% freezing to the equator and on the upside by the rapidly declining effect of insolation at high latitude;
2. Next most important, the water vapor feedback, which is limited on the downside by full condensation at temperatures below freezing and on the upside by increasing cloud cover (the latter effect explains why the earth has never heated to more than ~10C above current temperatures despite spending most of its history near that level);
3. Weakest by far, the ocean-CO2 feedback, which is limited on the downside by full freezing of the oceans and on the upside by the "greenhouse" effect of gases whose absorption spectra are saturated being logarithmic in their atmospheric concentration. The fact that this feedback is very much weaker than the other two is proved by the much greater correlation between CO2 and previous temperatures than succeeding ones in the paleoclimate record.

1] Like you said, the economics theory conspiracy involved a small number of people. I asserted that the smaller the conspiracy the longer it will go before it's exposed.
. . . Also, we are now in neither of those 2 extremes. The Milakovich cycles have less effect at those 2 extremes. We are in the intermediate stable state an Ise ge that doesn't ever go to the Snowbak stste. This seems to be much more sensitive to the Milakovich cycles.

2] One leak can be papered over 10 leaks less likely, and 100 leaks can't be papered over. There have not been 10 or more leaks. Also, the people with money and power wanted the economics conspiracy to stay hidden, while the oil corps have money and power, and they wanted the climate change so-called conspiracy exposed. The best they could do is to dent it. they were not able to expose it as a conspiracy. They could not prove their case in a court for example.

3] You are wrong. The state now is much more sensitive to small changes of solar forcing because of GHGs than either extreme.

4] As I said, the state the earth is in now is much more sensitive to small changes of solar forcing because of GHGs.
.

[Truth To Power]

2] One leak can be papered over 10 leaks less likely, and 100 leaks can't be papered over. There have not been 10 or more leaks. Also, the people with money and power wanted the economics conspiracy to stay hidden, while the oil corps have money and power, and they wanted the climate change so-called conspiracy exposed. The best they could do is to dent it. they were not able to expose it as a conspiracy. They could not prove their case in a court for example.

You are being played if you think the oil companies want to expose the conspiracy. I have explained why anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering increases their profits.

3] You are wrong. The state now is much more sensitive to small changes of solar forcing because of GHGs than either extreme.

Nope. There is no credible empirical evidence for such a claim.

4] As I said, the state the earth is in now is much more sensitive to small changes of solar forcing because of GHGs.

Except there is no reason to think that is correct.

[Steve_American]

You are being played if you think the oil companies want to expose the conspiracy. I have explained why anti-fossil-fuel scaremongering increases their profits.

Nope. There is no credible empirical evidence for such a claim.

Except there is no reason to think that is correct.

So, the climate denier program by the oil corps is part of the climate is a crisis conspiracy.

That does NOT seem likely.
.

[Truth To Power]

So, the climate denier program by the oil corps

You mean the one CO2 nonscience purveyors made up?

is part of the climate is a crisis conspiracy.

That does NOT seem likely.

All part of the false flag.

[Steve_American]

You mean the one CO2 nonscience purveyors made up?

All part of the false flag.

You just assert that. You provide no evidence.

It still seems very unlikely to me.

[Truth To Power]

You just assert that. You provide no evidence.

You mean like you did when you claimed oil corps have a "climate denier program"?

It still seems very unlikely to me.

Yeah, well, your belief in bogus "tipping points" that imply the world will end in a few years unless everyone stops using fossil fuels proves you're not exactly the most astute judge of what is likely.