Perhaps greening the deserts could save us? A scientist who has greened some parts of the desert, says we can carry on using fossil fuels if we do, but governments around the world have even failed to do this. But perhaps we in the West should be chipping in for some of this?
In this video an American scientist debates with a hall full of Australian climate change deniers, and it's shocking to see how much they hate him, even though they understand no science themselves. This scientist addresses every question they throw at him, but they just get even more angry.
I get it. In addition to being economically unsustainable, Keynesian stimulus subsidizes, induces and promotes grotesque levels of over-building which are environmentally unsustainable. What a wonderful system. Instead of describing the actual cause of this problem, let's mislabel it as "capitalism".
ReplyDeleteI've been told here dozens of times before that without Keynesian stimulus, laissez faire would result in lower levels of economic activity. Which is it? And Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Money is a bad value system.
ReplyDelete"This scientist addresses every question they throw at him"
ReplyDeleteAnd he responds with the closed-loop, self-reinforcing mantras of the climate alarmists. Polemical structures can adopt a pseudo-scientific veneer, but the mask slips when declaring: "the science is settled". The very word "science" means 'open to better analysis or data'. So those who say it's settled or who value the esteem of authority are self-defining themselves as unscientific.
He responded to blatant stupidity in a very clear rational manner with simple metaphors that even a child could understand.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately we have a number of adults with less mental capacity than a child. Belief systems trump observation, analysis, and even basic logic.
Q: Do you believe in God?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you believe in unicorns?
A: No.
Q: Why?
A: Because I've never seen a unicorn.
Q: Do you believe in God?
Reminder on ‘One climate change scientist takes on a roomful of sceptics’
ReplyDeleteClimate change is the business of physicists, chemists, meteorologists etcetera. The business of economists is to figure out how the economy works. The fact of the matter is that economists have done a lousy job. After 200+ years economics is still at the proto-scientific level.
It is the peak of absurdity when the failed scientists of economics, who are too stupid for the elementary mathematics of macroeconomic accounting, blather about climate change.
What about worrying about the breakdown of the market economy which runs already on the life-support of public deficit spending?
What comes first: eco-self-destruction or oeco-self-destruction?
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2018/10/what-comes-first-eco-self-destruction.html
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
A carbon tax is BS that depends on the market. Just make a law.
ReplyDeleteEq. (iii) says that monetary profit Qm is positive as long as the business sector’s investment expenditures are greater than the household sector’s saving. Or, if the household sector’s budget is balanced in each period, i.e. Sm=0 ⇒ Qm=I (iv), and this means that monetary profit Qm is positive as long as investment expenditures are positive (depreciation is a sub-item of Qn). In other words, the economy must grow or it drops dead. This may happen before the economy reaches the physical limits of growth.
ReplyDeleteI deny that is true. Prove it.
Further, "the economy" is merely a metaphor for the various activities of individual humans.
Bob Roddis
ReplyDeleteYou say: “I deny that is true.”
Then you have to refute the macroeconomic Profit Law. Your bad Austrian karma is that you do not know what profit is.
Here is the proof: “The ultimate source from which entrepreneurial profit and losses are derived is the uncertainty of the future constellation of demand and supply.” (von Mises)
What a vacuous blatherer! And his followers are even worse.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
"In this video an American scientist debates with a hall full of Australian climate change deniers, and it's shocking to see how much they hate him, even though they understand no science themselves. "
ReplyDeleteThey don't understand science?? Several in the audience were scientists themselves, and almost all of them clearly educated and well informed. I saw a couple grumpy people, but none of the "hate" you describe. I doubt you watched more than a few minutes of this video.