I assert that the 1% would be fools to not instruct their lackeys in Congress to pass a temp. UBI. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15215407
If the 1% want to see civil unrest in the US and all other advanced nations, then they should not pass a temporary UBI.

Why? Because there is a war on, and this is causing inflation, especially in gas and food prices. Nothing causes more distress than rising food and gas price. IMO, the people are not going to sit on their ass and let the war make them unable to afford a place to live after they eat and buy gas to get to work.

This war is going to destabilize many nations, certainly the US.

The easiest way to avoid this result is to let prices rise but pay for them with a UBI. In WWII the US used rationing and wage and price controls. That is more complicated.
.
#15216024
Your assertion is wrong. Maybe we need to get to the basics of economics so you can see why you're pushing such a perilous economic path. I'll take it that you don't understand the basics of how everything works. You really are on very shaking ground with your economic beliefs. Let's take this step by step...

#15216069
I agree with a surprising amount of what he says.
. . 1] I disagree with him about
. . . . a] Including the US national debts with all the other debts. It is all the other debts that are going to be a problem of non-ability to pay.
. . . . b] The national debt can be paid with borrowing or with newly created dollars.
. . . . c] See Prof. Steve Keen to grok that private debt is the problem.
. . . . d] Note that MMTers have been saying this for years, but Wall St. and its economists kept saying only national debt is a problem.

. . 2] What I agree with him about
. . . . a] Civilization is headed for a crash. This will be caused by over exploiting the environment. See Climate Change
. . . . b] Yes, oil is in food. However, hotter temps and drought are reducing the total world's harvest. Not, a lack of oil.
. . . . c] So, he seems to be saying we are going to hit *peak oil* and then it is going to crash. I knew peak oils would come soon , meaning by 2030 or 2025. I have known this for a very long time. In 1973 I read "The Limits to Growth", where it predicted a crash in 2040, plus or minus 15 to 20 years. So, it is right on schedule. Then again by 2010 it was obvious that peak oil was coming in 10 to 20 years.

Now Bluto, this thread is all about my solution to that guy's problem for the American people. OK, he predicts the people will need more money to buy oil and pay their debts, right?
So, my solution was for the US Gov. to create more money and give it to all the people, not directly to the rich. Can we keep doing this? Likely not, but so what? The system is going to crash very soon no matter what we do.

It seems the billionaires have decided that they will be safer at sea than on land where the masses can get at them. I wonder how long that will protect them? Certainly not decades. They still need fuel oil and food. IMHO it is the billionaires who are mostly to blame for the mess civilization is in.

Mark my words; at some point paper money will not work to motivate people to work for you or part with their stuff. Then gold will work for a while. Then gold will not motivate people, and only real stuff will motivate them. Stuff like food, ammo, medicine, etc.

But, in the mean time, why not try to keep as many people happy as possible. The alternative is the opposite of Star Trek's Cmdr. Spock's dictum "The good of the many out weights the good of the very few."
.
#15216122
"But, in the mean time, why not try to keep as many people happy as possible."

You seem to be of the opinion that you want to shelter people from a feedback loop, and that's not a good thing. You see, when you don't have that feedback loop, people do dumb things (or dishonest things) and they don't learn from their mistakes. We did this in 2006-2008 with the subprime mortgage crisis, NINJA loans, CDOs and CDSes, and tranches of securities backed by self-licking ice-cream cones of politicans and bankers patting each other on the ass and playing shell games. It ended very badly by continuing it until that pesky old "math" crept in and it crashed. A lot of people lost out on that.

I want people to feel pain, because then they'll change their behavior. I also consider this like a ladder. Every so often, we take another step higher and eventually we have to jump. Break a leg or die on impact?

You seem to want the music to keep playing. I'm telling you, that's worse for us, ESPECIALLY in a global economy.
#15216130
BlutoSays wrote:...a lot of people lost out on that.

I want people to feel pain, because then they'll change their behavior...


So close, and yet so far.

What do both of these sentences have in common? The invocation of a vague concept of "people." But which people?

The people that lost out and felt the pain are the bottom 50% of Americans. The "middle class" was pressured but hardly as much as the bottom 50%. The upper middle class did very well under Obama's post-crash austerity. The billionaire class made out like bandits, and the figures are breathtaking. This happened after the '08 crash, during the pandemic, and will happen under the current war hysteria.

Are you beginning to see a common thread here?

Under austerity, the people who actually control economic policy are generously rewarded, while most every one else gets a face full of dirt.

Now how does an incentive structured in such a fashion prevent future shenanigans?

What would actually work to punish the real offenders? I tell you that no generalized macroscopic policy is going to work.

Why? Because under an oligarchy, the people who dictate monetary/fiscal policies have ironclad protection against suffering any repercussions of their behavior. Your goal should not be to punish Joe Drywall. Your goal should be to smash the oligarchy that keeps these cycles turning.
#15216238
quetzalcoatl wrote:So close, and yet so far.

What do both of these sentences have in common? The invocation of a vague concept of "people." But which people?

The people that lost out and felt the pain are the bottom 50% of Americans. The "middle class" was pressured but hardly as much as the bottom 50%. The upper middle class did very well under Obama's post-crash austerity. The billionaire class made out like bandits, and the figures are breathtaking. This happened after the '08 crash, during the pandemic, and will happen under the current war hysteria.

Are you beginning to see a common thread here?

Under austerity, the people who actually control economic policy are generously rewarded, while most every one else gets a face full of dirt.

Now how does an incentive structured in such a fashion prevent future shenanigans?

What would actually work to punish the real offenders? I tell you that no generalized macroscopic policy is going to work.

Why? Because under an oligarchy, the people who dictate monetary/fiscal policies have ironclad protection against suffering any repercussions of their behavior. Your goal should not be to punish Joe Drywall. Your goal should be to smash the oligarchy that keeps these cycles turning.


Exactly right.!

.
#15216253
quetzalcoatl wrote:So close, and yet so far.

What do both of these sentences have in common? The invocation of a vague concept of "people." But which people?

The people that lost out and felt the pain are the bottom 50% of Americans. The "middle class" was pressured but hardly as much as the bottom 50%. The upper middle class did very well under Obama's post-crash austerity. The billionaire class made out like bandits, and the figures are breathtaking. This happened after the '08 crash, during the pandemic, and will happen under the current war hysteria.

Are you beginning to see a common thread here?

Under austerity, the people who actually control economic policy are generously rewarded, while most every one else gets a face full of dirt.

Now how does an incentive structured in such a fashion prevent future shenanigans?

What would actually work to punish the real offenders? I tell you that no generalized macroscopic policy is going to work.

Why? Because under an oligarchy, the people who dictate monetary/fiscal policies have ironclad protection against suffering any repercussions of their behavior. Your goal should not be to punish Joe Drywall. Your goal should be to smash the oligarchy that keeps these cycles turning.


People dictated monetary policy and people took advantage of ridiculous mortgage policy; two sides of the equation.

So people with NO INCOME, NO JOB, and NO ASSETS should have been granted mortgages because home ownership is a "right" or not (leaving the tax payer with the SHTF results when it collapsed)?
#15216278
BlutoSays wrote:People dictated monetary policy and people took advantage of ridiculous mortgage policy; two sides of the equation.

So people with NO INCOME, NO JOB, and NO ASSETS should have been granted mortgages because home ownership is a "right" or not (leaving the tax payer with the SHTF results when it collapsed)?


You didn't grok our point.

Yes, the banksters are people, and the borrowers are people. But, so were many other people who were caught in the fallout of the crash.

The banksters were bailed out, so they didn't learn not to make stupid loans. They learned that they would always be bailed out. And worse, they learned that crashing the economy makes them more profits when they can foreclose on people who lost their jobs in the crash.

OTOH, many people who had done nothing wrong, in that they didn't lie and could make the payments as long as the economy wasn't crashed by banksters making stupid loans still lost their homes. And worse the banksters make a profit on them.

.
#15216280
BlutoSays wrote:Your assertion is wrong. Maybe we need to get to the basics of economics so you can see why you're pushing such a perilous economic path. I'll take it that you don't understand the basics of how everything works. You really are on very shaking ground with your economic beliefs. Let's take this step by step...



One other point.
He asserts that GDP and energy use have been and will always be tightly linked.

The graph he used looked pretty convincing.

However, the main way they are linked is people consuming more energy means they consume more wealth, i.e. having a higher standard of living. However, inflation is another way the GDP grows without needing to use more energy. AFAIK, the graph showed a link between energy use and wealth consumed. IMO, inflation should have caused the graph to not be a straight line, if inflation was a problem.

This is very important. This is because he predicts inflation as one route to take in the future starting now. The other route is to clamp down on the economy and cause massive suffering with inflation and a recession at the same time. So, if we choose to let inflation rip and give everyone enough UBI to provide the money for them to buy the needed oil on the world market, then the /west and Japan, etc. will have a few more months or years. And who will care if the long run never comes? Why do I think the long run will never come?

You and I likely disagree on the effects of climate change starting now. I see it as gathering velocity starting now. You may have missed it but, there are reports of a 10 fold increase in methane CH4 being released each day compared to the last few years. To me this is the evidence I have been told to watch for that a CH4 tipping point has been crossed and starting now the temps will shoot up faster than they have for the last few years. This is because methane is 80 to 100 times stronger as a GHG than CO2 when it is released, but it does convert to CO2 fairly fast. So, over a 20 year period it isn't all that bad. However, if more and more CH4 are being released in the arctic every month, the amount of CH4 in the air will keep increasing/growing because the amount released is much greater than the amount being converted to CO2.

IMHO, this tipping point is a disaster. We have less than a decade left before the massive die off reaches the US. It will start in the 3rd world this year or next at the latest. I saw a report that grain yields in the US are already falling, and this is part of the reason that food prices are going up in the current "inflation".

.267 views
#15216339
Steve_American wrote:You didn't grok our point.

Yes, the banksters are people, and the borrowers are people. But, so were many other people who were caught in the fallout of the crash.

The banksters were bailed out, so they didn't learn not to make stupid loans. They learned that they would always be bailed out. And worse, they learned that crashing the economy makes them more profits when they can foreclose on people who lost their jobs in the crash.

OTOH, many people who had done nothing wrong, in that they didn't lie and could make the payments as long as the economy wasn't crashed by banksters making stupid loans still lost their homes. And worse the banksters make a profit on them.

.


Why are you blaming only banksters? Because they're rich? Why aren't you blaming politicians also? Because they promised houses to people who had no business owning them to begin with?

There's a large percentage of the population that never signed up for loans, even in the way the GSEs structured and offered them. Why is that?

Because they don't have the risk appetite for losing their house if things go south. Let's just say people who are "squared away" know whether they can afford a mortgage or not (WITH a buffer).

But damn near everyone paid for this idiocy. Some lost their houses, most everyone got hit hard with housing devaluations and whole municipalities and neighborhoods got hit with empty houses that were poorly maintained and often had to be fixed or bailed out with local or state taxes. It was to say, a real shit-show, because it also caused a helluva recession later on. All because knuckleheads believe homeownership is "a right". It isn't. And furthermore, this unsound lending was MANDATED by government and some mortgage companies would be threatened with charges of dicriminatory practices if they didn't go along with it. There was a lot of blame to go around. Point is, it needed to stop long ago. And I'll bet they're doing it again under new terms.

#15216342
Steve_American wrote:One other point.
He asserts that GDP and energy use have been and will always be tightly linked.

The graph he used looked pretty convincing.

However, the main way they are linked is people consuming more energy means they consume more wealth, i.e. having a higher standard of living. However, inflation is another way the GDP grows without needing to use more energy. AFAIK, the graph showed a link between energy use and wealth consumed. IMO, inflation should have caused the graph to not be a straight line, if inflation was a problem.

This is very important. This is because he predicts inflation as one route to take in the future starting now. The other route is to clamp down on the economy and cause massive suffering with inflation and a recession at the same time. So, if we choose to let inflation rip and give everyone enough UBI to provide the money for them to buy the needed oil on the world market, then the /west and Japan, etc. will have a few more months or years. And who will care if the long run never comes? Why do I think the long run will never come?

You and I likely disagree on the effects of climate change starting now. I see it as gathering velocity starting now. You may have missed it but, there are reports of a 10 fold increase in methane CH4 being released each day compared to the last few years. To me this is the evidence I have been told to watch for that a CH4 tipping point has been crossed and starting now the temps will shoot up faster than they have for the last few years. This is because methane is 80 to 100 times stronger as a GHG than CO2 when it is released, but it does convert to CO2 fairly fast. So, over a 20 year period it isn't all that bad. However, if more and more CH4 are being released in the arctic every month, the amount of CH4 in the air will keep increasing/growing because the amount released is much greater than the amount being converted to CO2.

IMHO, this tipping point is a disaster. We have less than a decade left before the massive die off reaches the US. It will start in the 3rd world this year or next at the latest. I saw a report that grain yields in the US are already falling, and this is part of the reason that food prices are going up in the current "inflation".

.267 views


Energy use and GDP are tightly woven. That's a fact, like gravity exists.

You seem to think if you let inflation rip, it won't be as bad. What happens to all the retirees and those on fixed incomes who live off social security? Your UBI will do nothing except make a jar of peanut butter rise from $4 to $7 along with the heating/cooling bill and everything else. When you "give" everyone money without demanding productivity, you cause inflation and devalue the currency further.

Frankly, if your theory of climate change were correct...well...we just put the whole world on economic pause for two years and at a much more drastic amount than you could hope for (people not driving nearly as much, fewer airplane flights, whole businesses and consumer consumption shut down) and well.... you're still worried about it. Let's not bring climate change into this. Stick to economics. We had "less than a decade" when Al Gore was selling it in the 90's.

Bottom line, I trust the market much more than the overlords "tinkering" in Washington DC and Davos. Everything they touch turns to shit.
#15216360
BlutoSays wrote:But damn near everyone paid for this idiocy. Some lost their houses, most everyone got hit hard with housing devaluations and whole municipalities and neighborhoods got hit with empty houses that were poorly maintained and often had to be fixed or bailed out with local or state taxes. It was to say, a real shit-show, because it also caused a helluva recession later on. All because knuckleheads believe homeownership is "a right". It isn't. And furthermore, this unsound lending was MANDATED by government and some mortgage companies would be threatened with charges of dicriminatory practices if they didn't go along with it. There was a lot of blame to go around. Point is, it needed to stop long ago. And I'll bet they're doing it again under new terms.


Indeed. The fundamental problem, of course, is that for a significant section of the working population, their pay is too low for them to ever be able to afford to buy a house. But it is an essential shibboleth of American politics that everyone should be "middle-class" (which generally means owning their own home). Given the current state of the capitalist economic system in America right now, this is not possible. And pretending that it is possible for political reasons was a massive act of self-deception which could only end badly, and did end badly. America is a class-based society, just like Britain, and attempting to blind yourselves to this fact is going to destroy your economy and then your nation.
#15216370
1) Home ownership has hovered somewhere between 60% to 70% in the U.S. for a long time. Most of the rest rent.

2) We haven't had capitalism in the U.S. for 100+ years. From Wilson onward. You don't have Wilson's utter foolishness, FDR's New Deal, Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal, Truman's Fair Deal, LBJ's Great Society, Obamacare and all the other gubmint backed pyramid schemes (mandates) we've had for over the last century under capitalism. All that stuff is pushed my men in power sitting in ivory towers, not a free market.

3) Please read your banner quote by Groucho Marx and reread it and understand it.
#15216469
BlutoSays wrote:Energy use and GDP are tightly woven. That's a fact, like gravity exists.

You seem to think if you let inflation rip, it won't be as bad.What happens to all the retirees and those on fixed incomes who live off social security?Your UBI will do nothing except make a jar of peanut butter rise from $4 to $7 along with the heating/cooling bill and everything else. When you "give" everyone money without demanding productivity, you cause inflation and devalue the currency further.

Frankly, if your theory of climate change were correct...well...we just put the whole world on economic pause for two years and at a much more drastic amount than you could hope for (people not driving nearly as much, fewer airplane flights, whole businesses and consumer consumption shut down) and well.... you're still worried about it. Let's not bring climate change into this. Stick to economics. We had "less than a decade" when Al Gore was selling it in the 90's.

Bottom line, I trust the market much more than the overlords "tinkering" in Washington DC and Davos. Everything they touch turns to shit.


The people on Soc. Sec. would get the UBI payments too.

With the additional funds they could pay the higher prices.

Most people would have been able to figure that out. The fact that you couldn't tells us a lot about you.

___________________._______________________________________________________________

Climate change is real. I bet you didn't grok what I wrote when I wrote,
"You and I likely disagree on the effects of climate change starting now. I see it as gathering velocity starting now. You may have missed it but, there are reports of a 10 fold increase in methane CH4 being released each day compared to the last few years. To me this is the evidence I have been told to watch for that a CH4 tipping point has been crossed and starting now the temps will shoot up faster than they have for the last few years. This is because methane is 80 to 100 times stronger as a GHG than CO2 when it is released, but it does convert to CO2 fairly fast. So, over a 20 year period it isn't all that bad. However, if more and more CH4 are being released in the arctic every month, the amount of CH4 in the air will keep increasing/growing because the amount released is much greater than the amount being converted to CO2."

Your reply was to point out that your info sources have misled you about what Al Gore rally said all those years ago.
Whatever he said, he was trying to get the attention of the mass of the people. Sometimes one must exaggerate to do that. Frankly, I don't remember what he said.
. . . It doesn't matter to the fact or non-fact that NOW 10 times more methane is being released into the air in the arctic than was being released per day this time last year. And this will heat the arctic and this will cause the rate of methane released per day to increase quite rapidly. The claimed fact that methane changed 10 fold in 1 year means it will increase by at least doubling every year for the next several years. It might increase 10 fold every year. If it does increase 10 fold from now on, all the IPCC projection go out the window. Temps will start increasing a lot faster than they have been for the last decade. Maybe twice as fast or even up to 5 times faster.
. . . If the temps go up 5 times faster then every 2 years we will see the effects that the IPCC predicted for a decade to occur in just 2 years. [Well, the effects on glaciers and sea level will not happen that fast, but maybe in 5 years, not 10.
.
#15216869
Steve_American wrote:The people on Soc. Sec. would get the UBI payments too.

With the additional funds they could pay the higher prices.

Most people would have been able to figure that out. The fact that you couldn't tells us a lot about you.

___________________._______________________________________________________________

Climate change is real. I bet you didn't grok what I wrote when I wrote,
"You and I likely disagree on the effects of climate change starting now. I see it as gathering velocity starting now. You may have missed it but, there are reports of a 10 fold increase in methane CH4 being released each day compared to the last few years. To me this is the evidence I have been told to watch for that a CH4 tipping point has been crossed and starting now the temps will shoot up faster than they have for the last few years. This is because methane is 80 to 100 times stronger as a GHG than CO2 when it is released, but it does convert to CO2 fairly fast. So, over a 20 year period it isn't all that bad. However, if more and more CH4 are being released in the arctic every month, the amount of CH4 in the air will keep increasing/growing because the amount released is much greater than the amount being converted to CO2."

Your reply was to point out that your info sources have misled you about what Al Gore rally said all those years ago.
Whatever he said, he was trying to get the attention of the mass of the people. Sometimes one must exaggerate to do that. Frankly, I don't remember what he said.
. . . It doesn't matter to the fact or non-fact that NOW 10 times more methane is being released into the air in the arctic than was being released per day this time last year. And this will heat the arctic and this will cause the rate of methane released per day to increase quite rapidly. The claimed fact that methane changed 10 fold in 1 year means it will increase by at least doubling every year for the next several years. It might increase 10 fold every year. If it does increase 10 fold from now on, all the IPCC projection go out the window. Temps will start increasing a lot faster than they have been for the last decade. Maybe twice as fast or even up to 5 times faster.
. . . If the temps go up 5 times faster then every 2 years we will see the effects that the IPCC predicted for a decade to occur in just 2 years. [Well, the effects on glaciers and sea level will not happen that fast, but maybe in 5 years, not 10.
.


So you don't care about devaluing the currency at a faster rate of speed than it is now. That's your perogative. But don't expect everyone else to be on board with that.


"Whatever he said, he was trying to get the attention of the mass of the people. Sometimes one must exaggerate to do that. Frankly, I don't remember what he said. " Yeah, OK. Thanks for admitting that.

You haven't been misled by me in ANY way. If you do not know the history, that is not my fault. I do know the history. Brush up on it or don't. I don't care.

Ten years until a planetary emergency. Save time and panic back then!

An Inconvenient Truth (2006): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
#15216875
BlutoSays wrote:So you don't care about devaluing the currency at a faster rate of speedthan it is now. That's your perogative. But don't expect everyone else to be on board with that.


"Whatever he said, he was trying to get the attention of the mass of the people. Sometimes one must exaggerate to do that. Frankly, I don't remember what he said. " Yeah, OK. Thanks for admitting that.

You haven't been misled by me in ANY way. If you do not know the history, that is not my fault. I do know the history. Brush up on it or don't. I don't care.

Ten years until a planetary emergency. Save time and panic back then!

An Inconvenient Truth (2006): https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1


I realize that MS Econ. and MS Media assert the truth of the idea that deficit spending causes the devaluation of the currency. However, I posted a thread about how the data after the covid spending doesn't support that conclusion. It it there is a graph of the covid spending vs the inflation of the many nations on earth. If inflation was always cause by deficit spending then the line should slope up and to the right. It didn't, it sloped slightly down and to the right. Some of the nations with the highest covid spending had the lowest inflation. Ans some of the nations with the lowest covid spending had the highest inflation. And most damning of that theory, not one nation had high inflation and high inflation, Note not one.

I have also posted about a Cato Inst. study about hyperinflation, HI. It found that every case of HI was caused by shortages.

So, I have shown you data about how inflation is caused by shortages and the US currently has shortages. My suggestion for a temp. UBI helps the people pay the increases being caused by shortages. You think it will make the inflation worse. I'm suggesting that it will help the distributers buy more of the stuff on the world's market to the shortages will be lessened in the US, because Americans are paying more for the stuff.
. . . Note that, this is what the free market is supposed to do. Provide the stuff during shortages to the people with the money to pay higher prices. And not provide the stuff to the people who can't pat higher prices.

Bluto, please provide your historical evidence that large deficit spending levels always cause inflation. Start by explaining why Japan has had the highest levels of deficit spending, national debt, and the central bank buying Gov. bonds for 30 years and can't get its inflation over 1% for those years.

I clicked on your link to the preview for "An Inconenvient Truth", in the preview it never says that in 10 years there will be a disaster. It does say that in 10 years the "snows of Kilimanjaro" will be gone.
.
#15219389
Steve_American wrote:Climate change is real.

And has been for over 4 billion years. It just is never caused by changes in CO2. Not at any time in the past, not now, and not at any time in the future.
I bet you didn't grok what I wrote when I wrote,
You and I likely disagree on the effects of climate change starting now. I see it as gathering velocity starting now.

Temperature has fallen since 2016 and is now close to the average for the last 30 years:

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/ ... 02_Bar.png

What conceivable evidence would convince you that you are wrong?

You may have missed it but, there are reports of a 10 fold increase in methane CH4 being released each day compared to the last few years. To me this is the evidence I have been told to watch for that a CH4 tipping point has been crossed and starting now the temps will shoot up faster than they have for the last few years. This is because methane is 80 to 100 times stronger as a GHG than CO2 when it is released, but it does convert to CO2 fairly fast. So, over a 20 year period it isn't all that bad. However, if more and more CH4 are being released in the arctic every month, the amount of CH4 in the air will keep increasing/growing because the amount released is much greater than the amount being converted to CO2."

Methane has almost no effect on temperature. Nothing burger.
. . . It doesn't matter to the fact or non-fact that NOW 10 times more methane is being released into the air in the arctic than was being released per day this time last year. And this will heat the arctic and this will cause the rate of methane released per day to increase quite rapidly. The claimed fact that methane changed 10 fold in 1 year means it will increase by at least doubling every year for the next several years. It might increase 10 fold every year. If it does increase 10 fold from now on, all the IPCC projection go out the window. Temps will start increasing a lot faster than they have been for the last decade. Maybe twice as fast or even up to 5 times faster.
. . . If the temps go up 5 times faster then every 2 years we will see the effects that the IPCC predicted for a decade to occur in just 2 years. [Well, the effects on glaciers and sea level will not happen that fast, but maybe in 5 years, not 10.

So you can offer nothing but another load of irrelevant alarmist silliness. Thought not.
#15219428
Truth To Power wrote:And has been for over 4 billion years. It just is never caused by changes in CO2. Not at any time in the past, not now, and not at any time in the future.
I bet you didn't grok what I wrote when I wrote,

Temperature has fallen since 2016 and is now close to the average for the last 30 years:

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2022/ ... 02_Bar.png

What conceivable evidence would convince you that you are wrong?


Methane has almost no effect on temperature. Nothing burger.

So you can offer nothing but another load of irrelevant alarmist silliness. Thought not.


Lurkers, TtP is just wrong when he asserts that CO2 has never driven or caused heating of the world in the past.
For example, the worst mass extinction, the End Permian Mass Extinction is thought to have been caused by CO2 being released by a massive volcanic eruption that created the Siberian Traps. These traps are over 1 mile thick in most places and cover many thousands of sq. miles.
. . . Also, the earth has been a "snow ball" more than once. When it is white ice and snow over most of its area, it reflects a lot of the suns energy, just like the arctic ice does today. It is thought, and evidence supports this, that over a few to many millions of years the CO2 released by volcanoes was not being absorbed by the frozen oceans. So, CO2 built up in the air until this made the air hot enough to melt the ice. Then, all the CO2 in the air is rapidly washed out of the air when it starts to rain again. This can be seen in the rocks after the snow ball earth ends. In one case, a 200 ft. cliff of solid limestone with not 1 shell or even worm track fossil is where the calcium carbonate precipitated out of the water like snow in air.
.

How Public Pensions Turn Cities into Unlivable He[…]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

Even if we consider a fetus a person, a pregnant p[…]

By your definition, MMT is central planning of the[…]

JINO, judge in name only

Continuity is pretty important. The problem is, th[…]