Paul Krguman on climate change

Its your OP. Krugman is the one who in your OP cited the 2009 North East cap and trade agreement and the graph as evidence for its success. Its not my fault you fell for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Or the entire European Union.

 

I just wanted to know what you were referring to since there have been several cap and trade programs. You brought this up in our discussion of experts.

The cap and trade program on CFC gasses is a great example of the effectiveness of the policy. It contradicts the notion that cap and trade doesn't' work.

We need a national cap and trade program like the one we had for CFCs; however, congress has yet to pass a bill to do it. In addition, we need a montreal protocol for CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

 

Your cited article in your OP brought this up.

Krugman being the piece of crap he his tries to play off the trend that clearly starts in the Mid 00s as being the result of a 2009 cap and trade program.

 

So show me the model that has been proven correct as the years went by and then explain to me what policies I should support because of the model. You might be surprised by how difficult that would be for you.

 

BFD they gave one to Ostupid for doing nothing so that's no great feat anymore. That and a 5 dollar bill will buy a cup of coffee.

 

Models are probabilistic by nature. There is no such thing as proving a model.

In models, your looking for confidence.

- - - Updated - - -

What does obama have to do with anything?

 

Nice try but the entire reason that people make models is to try and predict things. Models in other fields are proven to be correct or nearly so all the time. Climate change is an exception to this. So seriously, tell me, what good is a 97% consensus if they can't predict the rate or amount of climate change? What policies should I be supporting and why, based off of what? There are no good answers to these questions. Get back to me in 10 years with a model that isn't terrible and then I will care.

 

Very little confidence in the current models since observation only matches 2% of the models and still deviating. That would mean the models are inadequate.

 

Oh I'm so sorry I had assumed that since you were the author the the OP that when you wrote

you had actually read the damn article or have at least gotten to the 5th paragraph. And we could discuss the contents of the article without you being totally lost. I guess I assumed too much!

I hope you can understand the confusion someone feels when the author the the OP who says how great an article he just read was has no idea what is in the article.

 

Models are measured by their confidence interval. Models can mean different things depending on the subject. In the case of climate science, their models are deeply grounded in physics.

From IPCC 5.

 

You didn't cite what cap and trade program you were speaking about or even the article; instead, you randomly brought it up for a red herring to my comment on experts. Generally, cap and trade is strongly associated with the effort to reduce CFC gasses. In fact, it's why many believe it would be the best model for mitigation of greenhouse gasses. We have empirical evidence of its effectiveness and economic impacts.

 

Which is kind of funny since the models are further off than IPCC 4. Guess you have to come up with something for the money.

 

Look at the people you trotted out for the 2014 primaries. Proof positive of the "anti-intellectual" movement in the Republican Party.

Sadly, yes we can. More of the same kinds of things that are going on right now.

 

Yes, more alarmism. The din will continue as long as the political will is there.

 

I posted the picture directly from Krugman's article. I'm sorry you never red the article its best you quit right now.

 

Cite what your talking about.

 

I'm not a mind reader. You made a red herring argument that your still running with.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=360050&p=1063967125#post1063967125

At first, I thought you had meant to reply to someone else instead.

I noticed you haven't addressed any of the points on CFC gasses. Obviously, it contradicts your argument here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=360050&p=1063966899#post1063966899

In a basic nutshell, cap and trade has worked as a policy before. You need to explain why it doesn't work now.

 

Actually it didn't work. It drove up the price of all things CFC related. However, that was a small portion of the economy and people were able to shoulder the extra financial burden. In the case of energy you are talking about 14% of GDP and and 21% of the average family income and even more for the average poor family. That is a burden not so easily born by the economy and consumer.

 

Do you even know what a risk assessment is? Tell me your risk assessment of CFCs.

On a side note, please cite your numbers.

 

Krugman gets no respect because he earns no respect.

Just another ignorant liberal.

 

So, from you, what is it you have evidence wise tells you the 95% confidence reported in AR5 is accurate? Did they provide any information to support that statement? And I supposed, just because they stated that, you believe it to be so? See, when I see words like extremely likely, this means they have no data to support such a claim. Why is it not my right to demand the data? Show me the data that supports what you posted here.

 

How they come to that decision is a secret. No one knows the process but them.

 

This has nothing to do with risk assessment. Dont change the subject. You argued that because the economy managed to shoulder cap and trade with CFCs that it can shoulder it with with CO2. I proved that your assumption is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) because it ignores scale.

Dont get all butt hurt. You were wrong live with it. CFCs are not analogous to CO2 because we are talking a much larger scale.

 

When I saw the title of the thread, I couldn't help but think "Homer Simpson on Quantum Physics."

 

No everyone knows the process. That is the sad part. Its right out there in the open.

Step 1: About a couple of dozen guys write the critical chapters of the IPCC report. Of those couple of dozens about 6 write the vast majority of it.

Step 2: Taking what those 6 guys wrote dozens of government bureaucrats with hardly any input from scientists 50:1 ratio bureaucrats: scientists re-write the findings of those 6 guys to make a better political statement.

Step 3: The IPCC claims that their report is based on the best science and the result of the work of thousands of scientists.