Upcoming Interview With Michael Dowd About Global Warming

#61
also, and this is really one of the main points of the show, don't you think we should all feel qualified... IE like really really really confident about this stuff before we go about abolishing the constitution giving up democracy as we know it
This is correct. An at-risk stakeholder is a form of Peer Review in ethics. Science is not a defacto form of government and reports to the public trust.

Dunning-Kruger dismissal also does not apply to an at-risk stakeholder's input.
 
#62
Alex, with the greatest of respect for Michael, who looks to be a man of conviction and intelligence, I think that you need to involve at least one more person in this discussion, and that is a highly-qualified consensus climate scientist. If you feel the need to balance that person out with a (highly-qualified) denialist/skeptical climate scientist, then that's fine, but without somebody who genuinely qualifies as an expert in the field and accepts the consensus, I don't think that you are going to be able to come to any meaningful conclusions - or, at least, your listeners/readers won't.
In addition I think we need an expert in the big oil disinformation campaign and their reliance on useful idiots (who don’t want their lives inconvenienced too much).
 
Last edited:
#63
III. Deep Oceans Acting as Heat Sinks - deep ocean warming is capturing atmospheric kinetic energy and temporarily having a concave effect on an inherently convex atmospheric temperature dynamic.
I mean think about this. Brian Soden is suggesting in his point III that climate models have ignored deep ocean conveyor belt heat sink effects. He is suggesting this, not me. If true, then:

1. Such a model would necessarily be criminally incompetent. Even a second year geophysics undergrad would know to model deep ocean conveyance cooling currents in climate models and base them on real Delta T heat content measures (not 'temperature').​
1. (corollary). Such a model would also quod erat demonstrandum be exposed to other considerations which impacted global temperatures by means of deep ocean conveyance belts. Because we have, by excluding them from the models, admitted that we do not know their contribution. Perhaps even ignoring unknowns which also took this same vector.​
2. Such an incompetent model would cause harm. If we make policy/tax/incentive/legislative decisions, destroy industry verticals and economies off that model... use that model to promote political figures, shift the wealth of nations... ??? This, if true, would be no different than designing faulty airline systems that end up slamming passenger jets into mountains.​

Now this begs the question - 'Is therefore such a liability, also now a conflict of interest?'

a. It is one thing to infuse your science with agency in order to get paid a hidden sum. Tau Point Conflict of Interest​
b. It is also a thing to infuse your science with agency in order to avoid a potential or looming liability. Indigo Point Conflict of Interest​
These are the same thing. They are equal in their ethical flaw, and only differ by the facade we believe about ourselves. Tau Point Fraud is often about fooling others, but Indigo Point Fraud often involves deceiving self first. (I have caught a lot of professionals at this kind of fraud over the decades... Guess which one is committed more often? a or b??)
Therefore, in our effort to succumb to an Indigo Point conflict of interest (in self protection), we ironically very well could be concealing also another contributor to the climate change phenomenon itself. Deep ocean conveyance belts.​
 
Last edited:
#64
On the other thread I have posted mainly about the science, I thought I might offer another part of the story here.

Did we know that Steven Rockefeller was one of the principal authors the Earth charter as part of the Rio declaration? A section of which concerned the United Nations framework on Climate Change? Go ahead look it up, it's no secret.

The Rockefeller name is synonymous with big oil of course.

Their fingerprints are all over this movement. It goes back further than the Rio declaration of course, back to 1972 or 73 with the foundation of the trilateral omission to create a new economic order. Or further still to the club of Rome which brought the modern environmental movement in the late 60's. The trilateral commission brought us things like agenda 21 and the Earth charter. Al gore a member of the trilateral commission. I think you get the picture. This is their baby cutting it's teeth.


There is a conspiracy and it is not a theory, follow the trail, there is an agenda, it is hidden in fluffy environmentalism, it is called agenda 2030.

I'll cross post this from the other thread here as well.


And...


The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan
https://www.globalresearch.ca/rockefeller-familys-covert-climate-change-plan/5678775

In the other thread I stated...
"They have no plan for replacing the energy deficit they intend of creating. This will further divide the rich and poor. It will create a modern version of feudalism by replacing the economic system of money with one of energy."

That was yesterday. Then today, a remarkable synchronicity. I found this...

"Energy, on the other is the driving force in an economy; money is simply its surrogate. There is surely a strong argument at this stage of human development for devising a new economic theory based on the flow of energy.'
"The First Global Revolution" - A report by the council of the club of Rome. p-99.

Here's a little more to chew on.
The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History Lesson
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...m-an-important-history-lesson-2/#1917b64a29be

It's as clear as day. It is the alarmists who are the useful idiots.
 
Last edited:
#66
Crossposting ...

Here is a somewhat related view by Scott Adams
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...itual-engineering-392.4215/page-4#post-126242

Scott Adams writes in his book, "Win Bigly", that when you understand the psychology of persuasion, you are not impressed by the consensus of scientists because they are just as suceptible as ordinary people to mass delusions. According to the psychology of persuasion, mass delusion is actually the normal state of consciousness. This is particularly true for scientists studying climate change because their career and financial incentives are involved. In the following excerpt, 2-D is the normal world view and 3-D is Adam's world view that people are not rational but make decisions based on other factors and then use logic to defend their beliefs.​
On top of our mass delusions, we also have junk science that is too often masquerading as the real thing. To the extent that people can't tell the difference, that too is a source of mass delusion.​
In the 2-D view of the world, mass delusions are rare and newsworthy. But to trained persuaders in the third dimension, mass delusions are the norm. They are everywhere, and they influence every person. This difference in training and experience can explain why people disagree on some of the big issues of the day.​
For example, consider the case of global warming. People from the 2-D world assume mass delusions are rare, and they apply that assumption to every topic. So when they notice that most scientists are on the same side, that observation is persuasive to them. A reasonable person wants to be on the same side with the smartest people who understand the topic. That makes sense, right?​
But people who live in the 3-D world, where persuasion rules, can often have a different view of climate change because we see mass delusions (even among experts) as normal and routine. My starting bias for this topic is that the scientists could easily be wrong about the horrors of change, even in the context of repeated experiments and peer review. Whenever you see a situation with complicated prediction models, you also have lots of room for bias to masquerade as reason. Just tweak the assumptions and you can get any outcome you want.​
Now add to that situation the fact that scientists who oppose the climate change consensus have a high degree of career and reputation risk. That's the perfect setup for a mass delusion. You only need these two conditions:​
1. Complicated prediction models with lots of assumptions​
2. Financial and psychological pressure to agree with the consensus​
In the 2-D world, the scientific method and peer review squeeze out the bias over time. But in the 3-D world, the scientific method can't detect bias when nearly everyone including the peer reviewers shares the same mass delusion.​
I'm not a scientist, and I have no way to validate the accuracy of the climate model predictions. But if the majority of experts on this topic turn out to be having a mass hallucination, I would consider that an ordinary situation. In my reality, this would be routine, if not expected, whenever there are complicated prediction models involved. That's because I see the world as bristling with mass delusions. I don't see mass delusions as rare.​
When nonscientists take sides with climate scientists, they often think they are being supportive of science. The reality is that the nonscientists are not involved in science, or anything like it. They are taking the word of scientists. In the 2-D world, that makes perfect sense, because it seems as if thousands of experts can't be wrong. But in the 3-D world, I accept that the experts could be right, and perhaps they are, but it would be normal and natural in my experience if the vast majority of ciimate scientists were experiencing a shared hallucination.
To be clear, I am not saying the majority of scientists are wrong about climate science. I'm making the narrow point that it would be normal and natural for that group of people to be experiencing a mass hallucination that is consistent with their financial and psychological incentives. The scientific method and the peer-review process wouldn't necessarily catch a mass delusion during any specific window of time. With science, you never know if you are halfway to the truth or already there. Sometimes it looks the same.
Climate science is a polarizing topic (ironically). So let me just generalize the point to say that compared with the average citizen, trained persuaders are less impressed by experts.
...​
 
#67
Alex, man, have you not looked into this? There is an eminently elegant solution to it. I forget what it's called (it's named after somebody) but it runs like this:
  1. Fossil fuels get taxed.
  2. The tax gets refunded on a pro rata basis to all taxpayers.
It's zero sum. All of the taxed funds get repaid to taxpayers. All that happens is that fossil fuels are less affordable.

I reckon that if everybody knew about this scheme, it would pass so easily you'd think you'd been drinking prune juice for a decade.
never heard of this... very doubtful. moreover, what about china, india, etc.
 
#68
never heard of this... very doubtful. moreover, what about china, india, etc.
It's called "Fee and dividend" - I had misremembered that it was named after somebody. The Wikipedia page gives a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend. I don't see any reason not to implement it - it seems to me to have no major drawbacks, so, for Americans/Australians, it would be independent of what China and India do - i.e., their not implementing one would have no bearing on whether we should implement one - though of course we would want them to implement something like it too.
 
#69
It's called "Fee and dividend" - I had misremembered that it was named after somebody. The Wikipedia page gives a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend. I don't see any reason not to implement it - it seems to me to have no major drawbacks, so, for Americans/Australians, it would be independent of what China and India do - i.e., their not implementing one would have no bearing on whether we should implement one - though of course we would want them to implement something like it too.
This type of economic tampering presents several disastrous downsides

a. A tax is not economically efficient

1. A tax carries a 60 to 80% inefficiency overhead (only 20 to 40% of the money actually gets to the intended benefit), the remainder is used as a royalty to build royal or mafia (non-democratic) political power​
2. A tax reduces the velocity of money increasing internal inflation in its targeted economy - outside economies thrive in comparison​
4. A tax reduces the turn of a dollar (monetary instrument) from 8x to 1 - 2x - thereby reducing the amount of capital available to innovation and necessary infrastructure and/or expansion​
5. Taxes only increase and do not bear the risk of the economy they 'serve' - that which is not exposed to risk in its decision making, defacto becomes a royal entity.​
6. A tax on the gross (no skin in the game) demands that the taxing entity acquire, consolidate or conquer thereafter, in order to succeed.​
b. A distribution of money to all parties in an economy is a zero sum gain

1. What you give away for free becomes worthless - states where scholarships are handed out, see a doubling in the cost of college within 3 years - scholarship graduates end up spending the same amount to attend college as they always did​
2. An equal distribution of basic income, becomes inflation within 18 months. People have more numerical flow of cash, but possess the same exact life-style and burdens they previously did, within 18 months.​
3. Unless a distribution of free income is backed by the export of a material resource - it is deconstructive.​
c. An unequal distribution of value-to-risk, disadvantages the economies which carry the risk. China knows this trick well

1. China is defeating the West now by fixing its tax and profit risk on its manufactured goods. All tax (because they tax on the 'net' and not the gross) and margin risk is shifted to the consuming nations. Eventually their mechanisms fail (the same as product dumping)​
2. By having only certain nations carry the burden of value (carbon alleviation), we unfairly advantage China, and will create a new defacto super power and royalty class (Triads), who live under immunity privilege.​
Note at this juncture: Carbon ppm's and global temperatures continue as they always have in this scenario. An small side issue here tho...
d. Carbon credit revenue (or tax offsets in kind = same thing) are soft economic displacements. They degrade real development capital

1. A carbon credit exchange creates robust monetary exchange and contract amounts, which do not equate to real economic activity​
2. Those who trade fictitious value instruments/tax offsets, will eventually fail through no provision of value. (i.e. GDP consists of only a stock market = danger)​
3. Carbon credit capitalizations are allocated for only further carbon credit capitalizations and suck life from real economic capital markets, reducing capitalized GDP below the critical Gross Capital Formation threshold of 20%​
4. Western and global economies are then placed under precarious and disastrous risk.​
For Australia this would have little impact, because mineral production per capita is high versus the globe. But everyone else gets screwed. Literally everyone but BRAC (Brazil, Russia, Australia and China) - who also will inherit virtually NONE of the economic refugees from all this.

India collapses unable to either play the game on the win side, nor support its out of control population. The Russian mafia loses its gas and oil royalty and is forced to become the defacto arms dealer and black market for the world. Keeping Russia's mafia drunk on easy gas and oil profits (and enslavement of 'their property' Balkan nations) is critical in keeping the world from descending into largescale war.

Non-Shia middle east collapses by infrastructure first (and fast, as our trading depth there is about 4 months out), then economically. Iran's chief GDP component becomes military technology and conscription - trade with Russia (amafia).

China would become the sole super power and Australia's main trading partner. China taxes on the gross, rather than the net. This style of taxation requires that the taxing entity continually expand or acquire in order to succeed... (*sullen pad instrument sound here).....

This would guarantee a war in the Middle East, as Iran has aspirations to re-establish the Sassanid Holy Empire for their End Times. Iran would need to ally with China in order to then pull this off.

So, can you see why the 'simple' message you might be consistently fed is ...maybe not a completely unbiased one? And you can see why those who do not live in Australia, might possess a different opinion on this issue? This does not serve to make them stupid or unconcerned for the Earth or spirituality.

If you think the developing world is suffering now? Wait for this gem of a global configuration supporting 12 billion people - they don't realy know hell just yet. ;)
 
Last edited:
#70
This type of economic tampering presents several disastrous downsides
TES, all I saw was a bunch of unsupported assertions, several of which seem to be either irrelevant or nonsensical. With respect to the latter, take this:

What you give away for free becomes worthless
This tax (and its associated dividend) is not giving anything away for free. It is simply ensuring revenue neutrality.

Or this:

What? Fee and dividend has nothing to do with "carbon credits", let alone "exchanges" of them.

It's like you were responding to a post that I hadn't made.
 
#71
TES, all I saw was a bunch of unsupported assertions, several of which seem to be either irrelevant or nonsensical. With respect to the latter, take this:
The typical crap-talk by someone who cannot argue the subject and does not understand that they just made a whole bunch of unsupported assertions.

This tax is not giving anything away for free. It is simply ensuring revenue neutrality.
This is meaningless babble.

What? Fee and dividend has nothing to do with "carbon credits", let alone "exchanges" of them.

It's like you were responding to a post that I hadn't made.
A tax credit is a carbon credit - incentives, credts, taxes and offsets/substitutions in kind, etc are all the same economic entity in a strategy. You have never actually traded carbon credits or applied for a tax credit have you?

You were making a post which you indicate in this that you were not skilled/backgrounded enough to understand.
 
Last edited:
#72
The typical response of someone who cannot argue the subject.
No, it's the response of somebody who sees a whole bunch of irrelevancies posted that would take far too much effort to address one by one, so who chooses to call out the whole lot more generally.

This is meaningless babble.
Oh? So, tell me, exactly what is being "given away for free" in a fee and dividend situation?

A tax credit is a carbon credit. You have never actually traded carbon credits
Again: what?! The fee and dividend scheme has nothing to do with "trading" carbon credits.
 
#73
No, it's the response of somebody who sees a whole bunch of irrelevancies posted that would take far too much effort to address one by one, so who chooses to call out the whole lot more generally.
You made a contention (which was an entire Wikipedia economic entry) which was every bit as much in complication and assertion - you just did not know it. A key indicator that you did not grasp what you were saying.

This was a refutation of your 'bunch of stuff' economic contention - a whole series of unsupported claims. You just missed this.

Oh? So, tell me, exactly what is being "given away for free" in a fee and dividend situation?
and I quote ..."By handing out the revenue of this tax as a universal climate income..."

Again: what?! The fee and dividend scheme has nothing to do with "trading" carbon credits.
When a govmt or NGO or IGO or MF issues taxes on carbon producing crude oils, and offer credits/offsets on such taxes (for doing the right thing) - that is the definition of one type of carbon credit. Such actions can be wrapped in an instrument and traded... and often are.

Just saying... 'create a tax' and 'distribute a dividend' are a vastly more complicated things than you have implied.

It is you who did not recognize your own post.
 
Last edited:
#74
This was a refutation of your 'bunch of stuff' economic contention - a whole series of unsupported claims. You just missed this.
Nah, dude. Mostly, your response was irrelevant. Where it was potentially relevant, it veered into crazy land. Let's take your very first point:

A tax carries a 60 to 80% inefficiency overhead (only 20 to 40% of the money actually gets to the intended benefit), the remainder is used as a royalty to build royal or mafia (non-democratic) political power
What? "Royal or mafia" power? So, I can grant that there might be certain overheads associated with equitably redistributing a carbon tax back to those who paid it in the first place (though 60 to 80% I would need to see strong evidence for), but to describe this overhead as "build[ing] royal or mafia (non-democratic) political power" is crazy land rhetoric. The aim is to disincentivise carbon emissions - you get that, right? That's got nothing to do with non-democratically retaining political power; it's an environmental imperative. Indeed, one would hope that it would be a boon to democratically holding on to political power, in that voters would recognise it as a sound policy.

and I quote ..."By handing out the revenue of this tax as a universal climate income..."
By which you ignore that those who receive the income are the same ones who paid its costs in the first place! It's not "free" - it's just returning the money to those who originally spent it!

When a govmt or NGO or IGO or MF issues taxes on carbon producing crude oils, and offer credits on such taxes (for doing the right thing) - that is the definition of one type of carbon credit. Such actions can be wrapped in an instrument and traded... and always are.
OK, now it's my turn to tell you: this is meaningless babble. Carbon credits simply don't exist in the way in which you imply on a fee and dividend scheme. People simply get refunded in their tax returns that for which they (in general) are taxed on carbon. Could people wrap up these anticipated tax returns in an instrument for trading... I mean, I guess so - stranger things have happened - but it seems unlikely.
 
#75
The aim is to disincentivise carbon emissions - you get that, right?
Incentives are the traded other-side of the disincentive tax ledger. I won't respond to your accusations of 'crazyland' other than to say - again, you do not know the subject, and you do not know how to argue without getting personal.

You just did this getting personal attack thing with David in another thread. Dude? .... you said "I am beginning to question your intellectual honesty" ...??? Everyone who has the temerity to disagree with you is crazy and dishonest. We all get this Laird.

This discussion is ended... it is derailing this good thread.

By which you ignore that those who receive the income are the same ones who paid its costs in the first place! It's not "free" - it's just returning the money to those who originally spent it!
Thank you for this laugh...:)

OK, now it's my turn to tell you: this is meaningless babble. Carbon credits simply don't exist in the way in which you imply on a fee and dividend scheme. People simply get refunded in their tax returns that for which they (in general) are taxed on carbon. Could people wrap up these anticipated tax returns in an instrument for trading... I mean, I guess so - stranger things have happened - but it seems unlikely.
'Fee, Dividend' ...magic words. I love magic words. You can act like you said something 1. competent and 2. simple.
 
Last edited:
#76
you do not know how to argue without getting personal.
But then:

You can act like you said something competent and simple.
Pot, kettle, black. You're getting just as personal, dude. I accept that it is sometimes necessary to get personal - you seem to decree not to, but then you do it anyway. There's nothing else worth responding to in your post, except to note again along these lines that you have surrendered any supposed moral or intellectual high ground.
 
#77
But then:



Pot, kettle, black. You're getting just as personal, dude. I accept that it is sometimes necessary to get personal - you seem to decree not to, but then you do it anyway. There's nothing else worth responding to in your post, except to note again along these lines that you have surrendered any supposed moral or intellectual high ground.
Not even close Laird. This was a critique of your arguing method, not you. Just stop...
Back to ignore... jeez...
 
#78
This was a critique of your arguing method
Oh, right, so that's why you used the second person pronoun, "You" as opposed to an impersonal referent like "Your argument". Nah, dude, I'm not buying it.

Anyhow, I think it's useful to sum up, for those who are sick of the personal jibes between us, and want the skinny:

The fee and dividend scheme works like this: a certain sum of money is taxed from people making market purchases based on how carbon-intensive their purchases are. This sum (minus any administrative fees in administering this scheme, which, as TES legitimately points out, are non-zero), is refunded back to those tax-payers, such that the net of tax versus dividends (and administrative expenses) is zero.

End result: carbon-intensive purchases become less desirable, even though, other than for administrative fees, nobody is worse off. Thus, people and businesses transition away from carbon-intensive products - but without any overall negative impacts to their budgets.

This seems to me to be a perfect way to politically force a migration to renewables where that isn't already being economically forced - and it is already being economically forced, given that the prices of wind and solar keep on going down!
 
#79
c. An unequal distribution of value-to-risk, disadvantages the economies which carry the risk. China knows this trick well

1. China is defeating the West now by fixing its tax and profit risk on its manufactured goods. All tax (because they tax on the 'net' and not the gross) and margin risk is shifted to the consuming nations. Eventually their mechanisms fail (the same as product dumping)​
2. By having only certain nations carry the burden of value (carbon alleviation), we unfairly advantage China, and will create a new defacto super power and royalty class (Triads), who live under immunity privilege.​
Note at this juncture: Carbon ppm's and global temperatures continue as they always have in this scenario. An small side issue here tho...
This is the contention set which concerns me the most. This is derived from a particular strategy for China in which my firm participated. The economics behind contention c.1. were actually accepted by China in part. Their ministry of trade agreed with the essence, but not all the deployment action recommendations. Which was an enormous first step.

Risk on margin, and the taxing of the gross versus the net - is a key deliberation before we construct global incentive debits and credits. Before we resort to the tax lever - I contend that there are numerous immediate actions we can take which have real impact - even up to 100% of the COM (2018) 773 goals - and are not as Zen-complex or potentially regressive as might become a comprehensive tax. (Anderson, Mikael Skou; Environmental, Economic and Political Effectiveness of Green Taxes; Third Annual Global Conference on Environmental Taxation; 2002; VJEL Vol 10, p. 62). Dilution of value is our enemy, not an 'increase in costs'.

1. Route organic, petrol based and methanogenic waste to LOCAL energy producing centers. Stop making large plastic crap.​
2. Reforestation back to 1910 levels.​
3. Decentralize manufacturing OUT of China (/India) and back to regional small scale manufacturing.​
4. End industrial farming and resurrect local sustainable agriculture - end soil injection with natural gas and growth accelerants creating rotting methanogenic biomass rather than nutrition. Do not allow farming on microphyla depleted soils.​
5. End mega-work centers in cities and tall buildings, with people stacked on top of each other, driving long distances in order to conduct work.​
6. Triple the price of airline travel - eliminate super-economy rates.​

Alex has a fair critique that #4 and 5 might require a global war. No underestimation of the difficulty of those actions. However, their impacts are less entropic than a broadscale tax. Taxes are Zen - they bear enormous unintended consequences. Which is why they should not be the 'first means of recourse'.
 
Last edited:
#80
Oh, I just noticed that you edited this in to an earlier response:

You just did this getting personal attack thing with David in another thread. Dude? .... "I am beginning to question your intellectual honesty." Everyone who has the temerity to disagree with you is crazy and dishonest. We all get this from you Laird.
No, TES, it's not that David disagrees with me that makes him intellectually dishonest, it's that he refuses to engage in an intellectually honest way: I ask him a legitimate question or challenge him in a legitimate way, and he just ignores it, generally whilst expecting me to answer his own in-turn questions: I mean, what kind of hypocrisy is that, and are you defending it?
 
Top