patrick.net

BoomAndBustCycle says

Why I bought a house with a swimming pool... spent yesterday in 101 degree valley heat without breaking a sweat!

Amen, brother!

Straw Man says

Notice the same switch that clown (John Oliver?) also uses: when subject of US being lesser polluter now than some other countries he promptly goes for "but in the past US polluted more". The past is the past.

So, then you aren't for going after terrorists that did their crimes "in the past"? That's foolish.

It's also a dumb as shit argument because pollution doesn't suddenly cease after it has been released. It lingers in the environment for centuries. So America's "past" pollution is presently still in the environment and fucking things up. The polluters should be charged for the cleanup costs, which measures in the hundred of trillions. That's why polluting doesn't make economic sense.

But then again, the conservative right has always been piss poor at running businesses, so why would they be good at the business of environmental management?

Straw Man says

US economy is now much cleaner than the most of the rest of the world

That's bullshit.

And China has 4.5 times the population of the U.S.

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?

socal2 says

But Dan think the US owes the world reparations or something.......

No, I think climate change deniers like YOU owe the world reparations. If you promote policies that increase pollution, you are as liable for its costs as the polluters. Pollution is theft, plain and simple, and you thieves should have to pay back your victims just like any criminal.

Dan8267 says

Facts are a bitch, aren't they?

Yes. For you. You see how small that piece of pie that belongs to the US? 17% fucking percent. So even if we believe for a second that your definition of "doing something" (which exclusively consists of talking, as you described in your "5 bullet points"), bitching and moaning exclusively about US is not going to make that much difference. You should switch your attention to the other 83%.

Dan8267 says

It's also a dumb as shit argument because pollution doesn't suddenly cease after it has been released. It lingers in the environment for centuries. So America's "past" pollution is presently still in the environment and fucking things up. The polluters should be charged for the cleanup costs

Go ahead, charge dead polluters from the past.

Straw Man says

Go ahead, charge dead polluters from the past.

General Electric is dead? Then I guess you don't mind us charging them.

Dan8267 says

Straw Man says

Go ahead, charge dead polluters from the past.

General Electric is dead? Then I guess you don't mind us charging them.

Go ahead, little fella.

Dan, more civility.

Straw Man, less lying.

Some lies cost lives.

So hot in Phoenix, some planes are grounded.

They may keep hitting records, and maybe even record a max temperature this year.

Dan8267 says

Straw Man, less lying.

Less than 0? It's going to be hard to implement.

Rew says

So hot in Phoenix, some plans are grounded.

Dan8267 says

Anyone who cannot distinguish between weather and climate should be ignored when it comes to policy making.

Yes yes weather.
They are breaking multiple hottest days records from recent history though ... again.

Straw Man says

Yes. For you. You see how small that piece of pie that belongs to the US? 17% fucking percent.

Also considering we have the biggest economy in the world and a very large landmass ranging from very hot to very cold climates, not too shabby.

How much do you want to bet Dan kicking it down in Florida is running his AC 24/7? Fucker is a environmental criminal using all that AC. I don't have AC at my house in San Diego County.

Straw Man says

Less than 0? It's going to be hard to implement.

You can increment your lie count for that lie.

Straw Man says

Rew says

So hot in Phoenix, some plans are grounded.

Dan8267 says

Anyone who cannot distinguish between weather and climate should be ignored when it comes to policy making.

1. You are being hypocritical. You often site short-term weather in your faulty attempts to discredit global warming.
2. Rew does have a point that repeated record breaking does indicate climatic changes.

socal2 says

How much do you want to bet Dan kicking it down in Florida is running his AC 24/7?

You would have lost that bet. More importantly, it's irrelevant. How does the use of air conditioning prevent the U.S. from implementing a carbon tax or other pollution tax?

Electricity generated by means producing pollution would be taxed as needed to clean up the pollution, increasing the cost and price of that electricity. More efficient energy production, whether that be by polluting and paying the tax or not polluting in the first place, would be selected by the invisible hand of the free market. Why do you hate the free market?

Dan8267 says

More importantly, it's irrelevant. How does the use of air conditioning prevent the U.S. from implementing a carbon tax or other pollution tax?

You want people to pay higher taxes on energy so you can live in a flood prone part of the world that needs AC a big chunk of the year.

socal2 says

You want people to pay higher taxes on energy so you can live in a flood prone part of the world that needs AC a big chunk of the year.

No. I want the true cost of any good or service, including electricity, to be paid for by the users of that good or service instead of subsidized by stealing from others. This means, by definition, that the cost of producing electricity is not shifted from consumers to non-consumers of that electricity by letting the producers pollute.

Again, why do you hate free markets? Let people decide if the electricity is worth buying and how much to buy. Stop stealing from some people to subsidize others. That's socialism. In fact, it's the worst kind of socialism, counter-productive socialism that creates financial incentives for waste without providing any economies of scale.

Deniers have to deny.

Self reinforcing feedback loops or in patnet language, "You started something you can't stop,ASSHOLES!"

Dan8267 says

How does the use of air conditioning prevent the U.S. from implementing a carbon tax or other pollution tax?

So your solution is by moving some numbers on a screen from one account to another will save the planet? That's interesting.

komputodo says

So your solution is by moving some numbers on a screen from one account to another will save the planet? That's interesting.

That's how free markets work. You change the price of things, and people change how much they buy. It's like magic.

In any case, using a pollution tax to clean up pollution is more than simply moving some numbers on a screen. If the pollution is cleaned up, then it is no longer a problem.

Again, why do you people hate the free market so much? Why do you hate efficient allocation of resources? Why do you insist on government picking winners and losers by letting some people steal from others? Why do you only like the absolute worst kind of socialism, the socializing of costs while privatizing profits?

Global Warming has become the Mother Of All Guilt Trips, inclusive of any number of subsidiary guilt trips.

Of course, libs like nothing more than a guilt trip and run at it holding their dresses over their heads with their panties around their knees.

Ceffer says

like nothing more than a guilt trip and run at it holding their dresses over their heads with their panties around their knees.

It isn't only "libs," and in fact it isn't even real liberals, but it is part of human nature:

No solutions allowed, only insistence on self-flagellation and mandatory shared sacrifice:

Ceffer says

Global Warming has become the Mother Of All Guilt Trips,

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the assholes creating methylmercury poisoning of the food supply aren't feeling guilty. And I don't care. Just like with rapists, I don't give a damn if they feel guilty or not, just that they are made to stop, at gunpoint if necessary.

This is an opinion article, and it's wrong. Predicting apocalypse is so farfetched, liberal gullibility is laughable.

Dan8267 says

That's how free markets work. You change the price of things, and people change how much they buy. It's like magic.

Huh? Who is "you"? A government bureaucrat or academic who has never even run an ice-cream stand?

socal2 says

Huh? Who is "you"? A government bureaucrat or academic who has never even run an ice-cream stand?

I'm not sure I can dumb this down to a level you'll understand, but I'll try.

Porky Pig owns a restaurant. Every day he steals eggs from Daisy Duck and uses them to cook breakfast for the other animals. He charges $5 for a plate of eggs. Since he steals the eggs he uses, producing a plate of egg costs only $3 leaving Porky with $2 in profit.

Governor Disney finds out that Porky has been stealing eggs and puts a stop to it. Now Porky has to pay Daisy for all the eggs he takes. It now costs Porky $8 to produce a plate of eggs. Porky must now charge $8 to break even and $10 to get the same profit margin. Whatever Porky decides to charge, his customers can decide whether or not the new price is worth it or if they would be better off eating at Goofy's Flapjack House.

Before Disney stopped Porky from stealing, Daisy was in effect forced against her will to subsidize Porky's business. This helped Porky a lot, and maybe his customers a little, but at the cost of a far greater expense to both Daisy and Goofy and the society as a whole. This is not free markets. This is socializing the costs of Porky's business while privatizing the profits. It distorts the market and causes misallocation of resources.

It is only after Governor Disney prevented Porky from stealing that we find out the true costs of Porky's product and what is the best allocation of Porky's eggs versus Goofy's flapjacks. If Porky goes out of business, that is the free market saying that Porky should never have been in business in the first place and his business was extremely wasteful, impoverishing society on the whole. If Porky stays in business, it will be at a lesser volume whereas Goofy will get more business. More importantly, the society as a whole will be wealthier.

Polluting is nothing less than the theft of public wealth, specifically the wealth contained in a well-functioning and productive environment. To shift the costs of production of anything from the producers of the product to society at large is theft, no different from what Porky did.

When the government, Disney in our story, stops the theft that does mean the government is setting prices or picking winners and losers. The free market sets the prices but only after the government stops the theft. If the government policy allow and even encourages the theft, then the government is picking winners and losers. By allowing corporations to pollute, our government is undermining the free market by stealing from us all to subsidize businesses that the free hand of the market says are losers.

Is this simple enough for you to understand, or do I need to draw pictures?

I wonder when the 4% down days will stop...

Need a dividend hike announcement soon...

Oh shit, another iceberg just broke free.. God damn it, hurry up and move those numbers on the screen and maybe it will refreeze and stick back together.

Quick question. If the whole world reduces CO2 output to say 10% of current levels tomorrow and going forward. So a 90% global reduction in CO2 output and it never increases moving forward, even with an increasing population. Does that even stop this? Are we just delaying the inevitable?

I'm not a denier FYI. I'm sking a serious question.

OK, so the bottom line is that I won't have to move to Florida when I retire, right?

Dan8267 says

You often site short-term weather in your faulty attempts to discredit global warming.

This is BS unless many links are provided.

Dan8267 says

Rew does have a point that repeated record breaking does indicate climatic changes.

... but record-braking snow levels were dismissed as "weather ergo irrelevant".

today was brutal for our little coal miner...anyone know what's going on? I saw NO news

2014.08.28 (August 28, 2014)

I'm liquidating all my stocks and going to cash
***
I'll be doing this [2014.08.28].
***
I am not a trader and I've held most of these positions for 3-5 years. I am not an expert and you should not copy what I'm doing unless you blame someone else if this turns out wrong.

I am not going short but may buy some puts if I see prices I like.

[Around 10 days later, markets went into a 5% correction and recovered within 60 days. They went on to set new all time highs in 2015, as predicted.]

2015.12.22 (December 22, 2015)

Long term rates will resemble Japan and sink further.

[As of now, 2017.06.21, that trade has returned +50% in less than two years.]

2014.10.16 (October 16, 2014)

"If NAC is outperforming, buy NXC. If NXC is outperforming, buy NAC. Then put your buy order in half way between bid and ask."

In less than two years since then:
NXC has returned +14%;
NAC has returned +7%.

Straw Man says

Dan8267 says

You often site short-term weather in your faulty attempts to discredit global warming.

This is BS unless many links are provided.

Straw Man says

... but record-braking snow levels were dismissed as "weather ergo irrelevant".

Straw Man says

I only stated the fact that the very same people who dismissed record snow as "weather" accepted a heat wave as something very relevant to GW. So your reply in the vein of "snow is relevant to GW too" is kinda irrelevant to my argument. Can't comment on whether it was effortless - you're the one to judge the amount of effort it took you.

Straw Man says

I see. It's OK to cite a weather event as a proof of climate change and not be considered an idiot if it lasts at least 2 weeks. What about last year's unusually cold and snowy weather in March and April in (Eastern) Europe? Does it count? That anomaly lasted more than 2 weeks for sure.

Straw Man says

Goran_K says

zzyzzx says

Al Gore was wrong!

Yeah, take that guy's nobel prize back. I was freezing putting the garbage cans out last night in August.

+1

When kids refuse to go into pool in August because it's too cold an I'm forced to fire up that heater, we have a problem, Al.

By the way, it's the long-term global temperature trends, not the regional ones. A few broken records in local areas is not evidence of a long-term climate trend. Many repeated years of breaking records across the globe is evidence of a long-term climate trend. And climate change includes more severe weather, not just overall a hotter Earth, although that is a crucial part of the picture particularly related to rising sea levels and the spread of malaria.

Game of Thrones?