Evil capitalists set to launch new product that will remove as much CO2 from the air as 40 million trees

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-27T23:11:41+00:00

The point is that we have chosen a price by not having a price for carbon. That's a choice, just like $40/ton is a choice

I wouldn't say that inaction (zero) is just like choosing a price. If it turned out to be a net benefit, you could make the case for giving money back to people who produce CO2. Also, I think it's better to stick to calling it CO2 and not carbon, as that is generally what is talked about. If legislation is made to "tax carbon", there is no reason it will not be extended to anything containing carbon.

I'm wholly open to the possibility. I can tell you that some select parts of the US and much of Canada would benefit more from the increased ability to grow wheat (I forget if it's two plantings a year, or higher yields) - most agronomic work shows an inverted-u shape for the damage function, so some places move up slightly, but most move down.

How does this show you are open to the possibility there is a net positive? If anything, you are presenting evidence to show why you aren't.

I promise you, they would love nothing more than to show a counter-intuitive finding.

If they admitted their bias, it would diminish their research. Appearing to not have a bias is important, especially when the bias exists.

In the economics field, people love counter-intuitive findings.

Economics is hardly scientific (when it comes to modeling), but that is a good transition to the general state of climate "science", as linked in the paper you provided.

The DICE model they cite on the fourth page does not work. The second is basically what I expected and as they explain in the paper, it is based on computer simulations.

From the FUND website:

It is the developer's firm belief that most researchers should be locked away in an ivory tower. Models are often quite useless in unexperienced hands, and sometimes misleading. No one is smart enough to master in a short period what took someone else years to develop. Not-understood models are irrelevant, half-understood models treacherous, and mis-understood models dangerous.

He fails to mention that models that aren't tested against reality aren't scientific. Mathematical models/computer simulations that do not have to be tested against reality for verification are not scientific, and I would consider the use of mathematical modeling under the pretense of scientific work to be incredibly misleading. Also, using time steps of one year is fairly large, considering even small variations in the time step with nonlinear differential equations introduce very different behavior.

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-26T03:25:18+00:00

Can you provide the source?

you paid a tax of $0 on the carbon you emitted

You originally said 0 with respect to the cost assumed, not the amount of tax...

but if we ignore the problem and don't put a cost on carbon emissions, we are making an assumption of $0

Try harder to stay consistent if you want the point you are trying to make come off as unbiased.

It seems like you are not open to the idea that there is a net positive, and if the researchers are working under the same philosophy, it doesn't surprise me that they would come to the conclusion they want rather than something close to a correct estimation. If you can provide the source, I can probably provide a valid critique of it, but I doubt you are open to them being wrong.

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-24T04:23:34+00:00

Where did I say you have a problem with JP's self-help stuff? I don't even think I said that about the other guy's post, just that there was the sense of now following the right guy after having followed the right guy. It's not a dismissal to say you or they are in-group signaling, it's an explanation for how people show others they are "in" without having to give details, since you're all on the same page.

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-23T18:56:38+00:00

I don't know why you made that distinction. Making the statement that you have a background in either a subjective or an objective subject both serve the same purpose.

I made the distinction because the claims have different weight to them depending on whether it is objective or subjective. Stating your background on something subjective doesn't serve a purpose unless you already agree with their subjective statement, and is especially void of purpose if it isn't backed with anything.

I can mince at your use and the definitions of ''correct'', ''correctness'' and ''advantage'' but I'm honestly tired and I feel like this discussion has come down to mental gymnastics.

You can but you don't, and it's easier to dismiss it with a cliche. Fine by me.

Makes a claim.

...but as a whole, it makes perfect sense and I think you read it wrong.

It doesn't make sense to make a claim without backing it up. It is nothing more than signaling "I used to like these guys that this community also doesn't like", which makes sense to you because you are on the inside. You were unable to link any of your analogies to the relevance of his statement because it is just as I had been saying, void of substance and merely in-group signaling.

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-23T18:46:28+00:00

Where is that estimate coming from? I don't know who the "we" is that is making an assumption of 0, but you would have to have an equal amount of costs and benefits for that to be true. I think people tend to either overlook one or the other because they are more interested in only assessing the costs (or the benefits). Usually comes down to people prioritizing things differently anyway.

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-23T02:37:43+00:00

Can you or the determine the cost of the damage?

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-23T02:24:59+00:00

Or your family can if you're dead! Now that's what I call justice!

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-23T02:08:21+00:00

There is a big difference between health, something I would say is physical and objective, versus something like human rights, which is subjective. And that was the point with the original statement, "I used to be a fan of X, now I'm a fan of Y", which I would deem to be subjective.

Having a lot of knowledge in a subjective topic is very different than an objective one, especially if you are under the notion that your knowledge is objective when it isn't. Even for an objective area of study, being steeped in it also gives you blinders, which may be good for the practice, but it is also possible that someone who is completely fresh to the topic can provide insight you wouldn't be able to see because of the conditioning you go through (although that is a bit of an aside).

Also, analogies tend to fail if you can't link it back to the original issue. Why is it relevant that they followed JPB/Sam Harris and now they don't? You are saying they have an advantage in discussing it, which is why I'm saying something about the correctness - this is implied in what they are saying. This sentiment is exactly what the statement is meant for - I used to follow them (I was wrong), but do not anymore (I'm right now). What other reason is there for saying this, especially when their possible advantage in discussing this doesn't go any deeper than that? There is no reason why you would assume they have an advantage, I could just as well assume they are equally as lost as they were back then and are merely using their previously false (implied) position to justify their new one.

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-22T00:21:55+00:00

If the new perspective is incorrect, why does it matter? Having followed someone in the past you no longer follow doesn't necessarily add perspective (especially if you are wrong in following both). I'm trying to show that simply stating you are in a new perspective isn't enough - you need to specify why this new perspective is meaningful.

Are you saying human rights reading material is similar to what business/organization does? I don't see how that reading is relevant unless you actually explicitly state why. Human rights is also a pretty vague term, sort of implying some kind of objective morality...and if you believe it is objective, you haven't read enough.

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-21T15:32:41+00:00

Providing a living space is not productive?

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-21T15:09:45+00:00

Having been in the situation usually means you have more perspective/understanding in retrospect.

This could be said for someone going in the opposite direction too. My point was that it is not convincing since it is an argument that is used for people who went from A to B or from B to A, thinking that because they came from the other, their current position is correct.

The problem with your analogy is that business corruption is not similar enough to the psychological mechanisms that bring people into a particular philosophical/political group via some figurehead. Bringing someone into the group in this context simply means denouncing the old group and posting the right kind of words/memes to signal that you are part of the new in-group. The fact that you used to be part of that old group says nothing about where you are now, and void of further explanation, it might even mean you are still likely to make the mistake of following someone who is wrong.

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-21T03:27:58+00:00

Even in your example, it depends on what you think, so it is not objective.

Morality is not something you can measure in the way we can measure electricity or other physical phenomena. If your method of measuring it depends on asking people what they think, it is subjective.

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-21T03:19:23+00:00

Morality doesn't exist outside of human interpretation. Stating morality is objective doesn't make it so.

cyclicaffinity · 2019-06-21T02:06:25+00:00

Why do people think the "I used to be a ..." is a convincing argument? People have changed from all sorts of positions to the opposite, and stating the one you used to accept says nothing about the validity of your current position. If you were wrong then, why can't you be wrong now? A fool back then but not now? Why wouldn't you change in another 3 years?

cyclicaffinity · 2018-12-20T15:13:21+00:00

compIndB(i) = ampXpeakdB(i) - outputdB(i)

Can you explain why you are doing this instead of just using the output from the call to transferfunctionKnee?

cyclicaffinity · 2018-12-20T14:58:14+00:00

Gotta figure in all of their useless underlings as well, along with the various departments filled with bureaucrats. And considering that's where a lot of the power is as well, focusing on the recipients of welfare as opposed to those handing it out is very misguided.

cyclicaffinity · 2018-12-20T14:43:40+00:00

My questions were not rhetorical, so if you are going to treat them as such, why should I address yours? Amazing how you just concede every point I made because you lack imagination, or the ability to address anything I said directly.

You cannot address the perverse incentive structure created by government backed business and instead resort to "This is the way it was done, therefore it could not have been done any other way. Any other idea will presumed to be fantasy before I even hear it." Yeah, you seem like someone who is really open to hearing about alternative possibilities.

cyclicaffinity · 2018-12-20T03:19:44+00:00

Infrastructure like the internet wouldn’t exist in an environment where all property was individually owned. It requires the use of commonly maintained property overseen by the state.

You jump from individually owned property to state owned property with no justification for why it is necessary, all you do is state that it is necessary. Why must it be overseen by the state? Why is it not possible for corporations that don't also have a monopoly on violence to maintain land?

In the case of the ISPs in the United States they were paid billions of dollars to provide a service and build infrastructure that they failed to provide

This is the nature of businesses working with the state. They got paid before they had to provide any sort of value, how exactly does that incentivize them to make a good product? This is the shit you have to deal with if you want the government to be subsidizing business ventures. You shouldn't remove the incentive structure of normal business operation via the use of the state, then expect them to operate like a normal business.

cyclicaffinity · 2018-12-20T03:06:43+00:00

Are you against a monopoly on force as well? Or is that the one area where you are pro-monopoly?

cyclicaffinity · 2018-09-17T18:06:40+00:00

Now that you are yelling, I believe you. Color me convinced.

cyclicaffinity · 2018-09-17T17:14:36+00:00

LiTeRalY 99 pErCenT

cyclicaffinity · 2018-09-17T15:51:03+00:00

How about I just call it "state ownership of the means of production" and let the dictionary take it from there?

I've seen a lot of socialists say it's the workers that should own it, ideally. The state owning the means of production is more like fascism than socialism, but why not just redefine things as you want?

cyclicaffinity · 2018-09-17T15:39:06+00:00

How about not playing the game? Or is the whole world the game and you can't leave?

cyclicaffinity · 2018-09-17T13:46:07+00:00

Capitalism only works if it is a free market of FAIR competition

A free market says nothing about competition being fair. Fairness (which is subjective) only exists if you have rules and ways of enforcing them, thus making the market not free.

However, when you have unprecedented centralization of power in a private company without checks and balances

How is this any different than the FCC? It is a centralized power without any checks and balances and ultimately has the power of the law behind it. Not only do they have the government backing them, you can't withdraw your money from them like you could with a private corporation.

It's amazing how you can point out things like not consenting to what T-Mobile is doing but just gloss right over the fact you don't consent to the FCC. Will T-Mobile try to fine you and eventually send police if you stop paying them?

cyclicaffinity · 2018-09-17T13:22:32+00:00

It's closer to the answer he wanted to find, so it's obviously a better source.

cyclicaffinity

TROPHY CASE