Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-to-make-or-lose-a-fortune dept.

The world's fossil fuel companies risk wasting billions of dollars of investment by not taking global action to fight climate change seriously, according to the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Fatih Birol, who will take the top job at the IEA in September and is one of the world's most influential voices on energy, warned that companies making this mistake would also miss out on investment opportunities in clean energy.
...
The World Bank and Bank of England have already warned of the serious risk climate action poses to trillions of dollars of fossil fuel investments and the G20 is investigating the risks. The think-tank Carbon Tracker has estimated that over $1tn (£0.6tn) of oil investments and $280bn of gas investments would be left uneconomic if the world's governments succeed in their pledge to limitglobal warming to 2C.

The warnings are based on policy proposals that are entirely creatures of human decisions rather than hard economic realities. Then again, all demand is ultimately the product of human decisions.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by bradley13 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:43PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @01:43PM (#209369) Homepage Journal

    Ah, it must be time to ramp up the panic just ahead of the Climate Change Conference. We had this the last time as well - all sorts of hyperventilating in the months leading up to the conference. Without panic, the funding might dry up. The news is going to be tiresome until the conference is over. But we can't have that - the politicians might cut off funding.

    FWIW, I am a "luke warmist":

    - Global warming is turning out much milder than all of the models predicted. Sure, CO2 has some mild effect on the climate, but the models assuming positive feedback via water vapor are clearly wrong [climatedepot.com]

    - Most predictions made (more hurricanes, ice-free arctic, etc.) have been incorrect [thenewamerican.com]

    - Anyway (c) historically, warmer is better than colder [climatedepot.com].

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Insightful=1, Informative=2, Overrated=3, Disagree=1, Total=7
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @02:05PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2015, @02:05PM (#209375) Journal

    "I'm a lukewarmist, which is why I'm linking someone doing the stupid as fuck no warming since 1998 (ON RSS dataset specifically, please ignore all others) shpiel."

    I mean, seriously. What the fuck? Are the only sources that endorse your supposedly moderate stance paid bullshitters claiming far more extreme positions with no relevant credentials like Morano?

    There's sources out there that present scientific debunkings of each these specific claims, but the broader question is: if you're a "lukewarmer", why are you up to your ass in hard-line shills?

    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:22PM

      by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:22PM (#209409)

      Lemme guess - the "sources" for "scientific" [sic] "dubunkings" is ... skepticalscience.com? Yea, no conflict of interest there.

      Frankly, the field has become so swamped with religious-like fervor it's impossible to take anyone that claims "relevant credentials" seriously. It's like going to a Catholic Priest to discuss the logical inconsistencies in the bible. They won't question the bible (anthropogenic catastrophic climate change), they will only dismiss your concerns, or call you "faithless" if you continue to argue.

      At this point there is no way to question the models / theories / "consensus", even for those with "relevant credentials" (plenty of examples of people with those credentials losing their livelihood for coming up with inconvenient issues). Meanwhile, Bill Nye raking in the dough as the "go-to expert" for the mainstream media.

      --
      I am a crackpot
      • (Score: 3, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:40PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:40PM (#209419) Journal

        Let me ask you something:

        Do you think comparing a celebrity science analyst* sometimes chosen by media outlets, is fair to compare to the idiots you've personally chosen to suck onto like a leech, regurgitating unsubstantiated or purposefully misleading talking points of your own volition. You could stop. You really could. And you're making poor Bradley13 look bad by showing the kinda attitudes that defend his position.

        Now, look, my main source for new information on climate change is research papers, not some blog, and you can pretend that's pretense on my part, lying to you like your conspiracy theory demands so many fucking people are doing. But you'd be wrong. You're wrong about alot.

        *who at least has a background in science education

        • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 15 2015, @04:11PM

          by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @04:11PM (#209426)

          Do you think comparing a celebrity science analyst* [*who at least has a background in science education]

          He has a bachelor's in mechanical engineering. And he's an actor / spokesman / comedian. You can call that having a "background in science education" if you want to - I guess if you're a member of the church, people will jump up to defend your credentials, while if you're not, having multiple Phd's in physics and biochemistry means you're "unqualified" to discuss climate science.

          to compare to the idiots you've personally chosen to suck onto like a leech, regurgitating unsubstantiated or purposefully misleading talking points of your own volition.

          What the fuck are you going on about? This is bullshit - I follow no one, much less "suck onto like a leech". You're just acting like a moronic jackass making some assumption about anyone I may be associating with - because YOU DON'T KNOW. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not a member of your church of the grand climate change drum beaters, so I must be one of those people. Really indicative of the type of shallow bias that your ilk typically displays. Fuck off with this shit, asshole.

          Now, look, my main source for new information on climate change is research papers

          My sources are also research papers, not some blog, which you might have found out if you had bothered to ask a question instead of jumping to conclusions like some giant douchebag.

          , not some blog, and you can pretend that's pretense on my part

          It does seem like pretense on your part, considering your failure to actually read what people say instead of making assumptions and personal attacks, and that you failed to actually link to any "debunking" papers instead of just making the claim.

          lying to you like your conspiracy theory demands so many fucking people are doing.

          More of this bullshit. I'm not buying your religion, so I'm a "conspiracy theorist" (a.k.a. heretic), and you're ready to burn me at the stake. You know what I did in that post? I suggested that a very complex theory might need examination. That's what science does. Yet in your over-the-top ignorance all you can do is leap to your religion's go-to reaction and try to label me anti-science. Guess what? That's what you're demonstrating: anti-science. Idiot.

          --
          I am a crackpot
          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:31PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:31PM (#209469) Journal

            +1 touché? Fuck that.

            I'm not gonna moderate you, but this is a shitty series of non points. You can't cite a single paper that endorses anything said by Morano, who I should remind you you're defending here (going as far as pretending Bill Fucking Nye wasn't a famous science educator for silly debate points WTF?).

            You're sad, and your "no I'm an outsider who's being oppressed by the establishment but don't call me a conspiracy theorist" spiel is real tired. You don't know shit about climatology, and if you'd read a single paper from the past year, I'll eat my goddamn hat.

            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:06PM

              by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:06PM (#209519)

              pretending Bill Fucking Nye wasn't a famous science educator

              Because he's not - he's an entertainer. A spokesman. A talking head. Nothing more. That you raise his credentials to something else says more about you than anything. You're a victim of television media. Brian Miur is your source. George Stephanopolis is your trusted commentator.

              You can't cite a single paper that endorses anything said by Morano

              I don't really know anything about this Morano person that seems to have stimulated your hatred, I never mentioned him, defended him, or care what he says. Maybe you're attempting some sort of straw man argument, but it fails to address anything.

              Frankly, I'm surprised you can manage to even read SoylentNews, I'm pretty sure it's the extent of your reading, you sound like a television zombie, which is probably what you are. You probably should go ahead and eat your hat - I doubt you know what else to do with it otherwise. Your reading comprehension is so bad, your boots are probably still full of piss because you couldn't figure out how to pour it out from the instructions written on the heel.

              --
              I am a crackpot
              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:09PM

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:09PM (#209520) Journal

                You know that intellectual condecision only really works when you're not arguing an incredibly anti-intellectual factually incorrect position, right? "You're so dumb, I bet you believe in algebra" is the level you're operating here. Just a PSA.

                And... thanks for not even remotely following the conversation you participated in.

                • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:58AM

                  by curunir_wolf (4772) on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:58AM (#209716)

                  Thanks for demonstrating my point - and all the other disciples moderating here on SN. My point is that it's useless to discuss it, because if you try to question anything, you just get shouted down. And that's the only reaction from anyone, name-calling and shouting down. Algebra is not a belief system, it's a tool. Science is not a religion, it's a methodology / process. There is no "science" left in AGW / Catastrophic Climate Disruption anymore. There is nothing about it that can be questioned. You all have proven that point.

                  Here's your chosen spokesman, "Bill Nye: People are the problem" [youtube.com]

                  --
                  I am a crackpot
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:31AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:31AM (#209804)

                    You can question it all you want; you have freedom of speech. But that doesn't mean that you won't receive criticism, or that you'll hear the answers you want to hear.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:03AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:03AM (#209771)

                  Yeah, dont hope for too much sense from this dude, you're arguing with a mystic, see...

                  https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7872&cid=195032 [soylentnews.org]

                  • (Score: 2, Funny) by ikanreed on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:56PM

                    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:56PM (#209896) Journal

                    I'm arguing with a goddamn moron who thinks he's smart. It's the worst.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:37PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:37PM (#209472) Journal

            Educating people about science for the last THIRTY years tends to count as a background in science education, my book.

            • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:57PM

              by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:57PM (#209512)

              Educating people about science for the last THIRTY years tends to count as a background in science education, my book.

              Saying what Bill Nye The Science Guy does is "Educating people about science" is exactly the same as saying what Count von Count does is "Educating people about math".

              --
              I am a crackpot
              • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:25PM

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2015, @07:25PM (#209529) Journal

                As in "literally a factually true statement"?

                • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:40AM

                  by curunir_wolf (4772) on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:40AM (#209709)

                  No, as in "Babysitting experience is not a qualification for teaching post-graduate university courses," to say nothing for being considered an expert in the field. Learning numbers is not "math", and dropping tennis balls on the floor to see how gravity works is not the same as explaining the concepts behind the double-slit particle/wave experiment.

                  Do you millennials even know the difference between television and real life?

                  --
                  I am a crackpot
                  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:04AM

                    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:04AM (#209792) Journal

                    Do you millennials even know the difference between television and real life?
                     
                    Yep, on TV you can montage past all the hard work and skip straight to post-graduate university math courses.
                     
                    In real life you need to learn how to count first.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:24PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @03:24PM (#209411)

      The answer is really simple: He wants to believe that the environmentalists and climatologists are wrong for non-scientific reasons.

      The most likely non-scientific reasons are one or more of these factors:
      1. Being paid by the fossil fuel industry
      2. A pseudo-religious belief in infinite economic growth, which AGW specifically challenges
      3. Political conservatism for reasons which have little or nothing to do with whether AGW is real
      4. A belief in an AGW conspiracy theory which states more-or-less that AGW is an elaborate hoax by liberal scientists and environmentalists to bilk taxpayers and end capitalism as we know it

      That everybody who examines the evidence agrees that AGW is real and the above-mentioned AGW conspiracy theory narrative is complete nonsense is totally irrelevant. It's about propaganda and belief systems, not scientific evidence.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 1, Redundant) by bradley13 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @04:38PM

        by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @04:38PM (#209443) Homepage Journal

        Ach, your four suggested reasons are just silly. The AGW panic, beginning with the hockey stick, never passed an engineer's sniff test. Natural systems are dominated by negative feedback, or the earth would have cooked long ago.

        I'm old enough to have lived through the previous global cooling panic. "oh nos, the planet is going to cool by 4 degrees, we're all gonna die!". Twenty years later, it's "oh nos, the planet is going to warm by 4 degrees, we're all gonna die!". Now the latest: "A solar grand minimum is coming, we're all gonna freeze!".

        Give me a break... People exaggerate to get attention for their programs and their funding. Has the earth warmed in the past 150 years? Of course it has. How much of this is natural, how much AGW? Nobody actually knows. What's the ideal temperature of the earth? Well, given that the previous warm period was called the "Medieval Optimum", and given the development of the Roman empire during the one before that, it looks like warmer is not necessarily a problem.

        --
        Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:13PM

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2015, @06:13PM (#209487) Journal

          Let's talk. Because I've been making the assumption that you think your position is a moderate one, and that's a personal belief that I'd like to challenge.

          So, here's some concerns:
          1. It's pretty clear that the underlying theory here isn't pseudoscience.
          1.1 The absorption spectra of the various components of atmospheric makeup aren't pulled from nowhere. Easy to verify with compressed gas cylinders, a prism, a magnifying glass, and a white light source.
          1.2 The makeup of sunlight is similarly easy to measure with a prism and photometer(or more modern tools).
          1.3 The broader idea of a greenhouse effect are also easy to lab-verify.
          1.4 The notion that the concentration of CO2 and other components is changing is a third easy to verify thing*
          2. The observational data has been largely in alignment with the underlying theory
          2.1 Exact models vary, but broad based meta-analyses by professionals have endorsed the overall trend here
          2.2 Objections to the data need to assert a null hypothesis that accounts for the substantial warming seen in an extremely short time span, almost unprecedented in the natural record.
          3. Engineers aren't scientists. We're not. We solve problems, come up with solutions that fit parameters using methodologies specific to our field. It's not a source of magical insight into every natural phenomenon.
          4. Negative feedbacks do exist. As do positive ones. The problems we're facing here are due to an unprecedented rate of change. There's 7 billion of us humans, and just like cyanobacteria in the oxygen crisis, and land based plants in the Carboniferous before us, we're a type of organism with tremendous impact on our environment.
          5. People may indeed exaggerate claims for money. It happens in medical research all the time. But
          5.1 To allege a conspiracy of nearly every single climate scientist to the same end is crazy**. You don't want to do that.
          5.2 We've got some very objective sources being examined here, NASA satellite data, internationally placed climate monitoring stations, records predating any notion of the theory.
          5.3 There have been numerous attempts within the academic community for broad based meta-analysis, and the conclusions of those analyses are what you're arguing against. Not a rogue researcher.
          6. Finally, the big thing. The scientific consensus isn't that the world is doomed, a case made by only a few people within the field, but that the economic and human costs of climate change from unchecked greenhouse growth are very likely to be an order of magnitude more than those of migrating away from a fossil fuel based economy to one based on sustainable energy sources.

          *Caveat 1: emissions weren't the biggest cause until quite recently, land use has been the biggest driver of this change
          **Caveat 2: I am not calling you crazy, just one thing you seem to be suggesting

          • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Wednesday July 15 2015, @08:26PM

            by bradley13 (3053) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @08:26PM (#209561) Homepage Journal

            1. It's pretty clear that the underlying theory here isn't pseudoscience.

            The theory, no, not at all. However, I think that the theory needs some improvement.

            1.1 The absorption spectra of the various components of atmospheric makeup aren't pulled from nowhere. Easy to verify with compressed gas cylinders, a prism, a magnifying glass, and a white light source.

            Right, no dispute.

            1.2 The makeup of sunlight is similarly easy to measure with a prism and photometer(or more modern tools).

            Ditto.

            1.3 The broader idea of a greenhouse effect are also easy to lab-verify.\

            Absolutely.

            1.4 The notion that the concentration of CO2 and other components is changing is a third easy to verify thing*

            Of course.

            2. The observational data has been largely in alignment with the underlying theory

            Well, now it get's less clear. Yes, there has been warming, but there are various components to this. One part is certainly natural - coming out of the "little ice age". Some is certainly CO2. However, there have been a *lot* of data adjustments, often poorly explained, and at least some of the original data has been (deliberately?) lost. When the original data is available for comparison, it is distinctly odd that the adjustments almost always serve to increase the warming trend.

            2.1 Exact models vary, but broad based meta-analyses by professionals have endorsed the overall trend here

            The models vary pretty widely, but they all do point towards warming. Which we have. The questions are (a) how much warming we really have, and (b) how it will continue. Specific, verifiable predictions are rare, and the predictions that have been made have mostly been wrong.

            2.2 Objections to the data need to assert a null hypothesis that accounts for the substantial warming seen in an extremely short time span, almost unprecedented in the natural record.

            Yes and no. Historical records with a high time-resolution only go back maybe 150 years. However, before that we do have indirect records of substantial and rapid temperature changes. That said, few people dispute that CO2 has had an effect. The questions are those in (2.1) above.

            3. Engineers aren't scientists. We're not. We solve problems, come up with solutions that fit parameters using methodologies specific to our field. It's not a source of magical insight into every natural phenomenon.

            No, but engineers do have a feel for systems, for what works and doesn't, for what is realistic. Intuition in the form of accumulated experience. I would hardly claim infallibility, but when something "looks" wrong, it very often is. The "warmist" models look wrong, the data adjustments are hidden, there's lots of money in play - the whole thing stinks.

            4. Negative feedbacks do exist. As do positive ones. The problems we're facing here are due to an unprecedented rate of change. There's 7 billion of us humans, and just like cyanobacteria in the oxygen crisis, and land based plants in the Carboniferous before us, we're a type of organism with tremendous impact on our environment.

            Sure, but the rate of change isn't necessarily unprecedented, or even important. Important is the amount of CO2. If you If you go all the way back to the cyanobacteria, then you know that CO2 levels were *immensely* higher in the past - far higher than we could ever reach if we burned every speck of coal and oil on the planet. If there were any sort of positive feedback with water vapor, the planet would have cooked in its own juices. It didn't.

            5. People may indeed exaggerate claims for money. It happens in medical research all the time. But
            5.1 To allege a conspiracy of nearly every single climate scientist to the same end is crazy**. You don't want to do that.

            There are actually quite a few "lukewarmist" scientists. They just don't get much press. I do propose an inadvertant cooperation of attention-seeking scientists, politicians jumping on a bandwagon and a headline-seeking press.

            5.2 We've got some very objective sources being examined here, NASA satellite data, internationally placed climate monitoring stations, records predating any notion of the theory.

            Yes, indeed, would that would be the satellite data that says there has been no warming for 20 years, despite continuing increases in CO2 levels? The climate monitoring stations whose historical data has been manually adjusted?

            5.3 There have been numerous attempts within the academic community for broad based meta-analysis, and the conclusions of those analyses are what you're arguing against. Not a rogue researcher.

            Again, there are more scientists at the lukewarm position than one hears about - they just don't make for good headlines.

            6. Finally, the big thing. The scientific consensus isn't that the world is doomed, a case made by only a few people within the field, but that the economic and human costs of climate change from unchecked greenhouse growth are very likely to be an order of magnitude more than those of migrating away from a fossil fuel based economy to one based on sustainable energy sources.

            Well, this is where we may be in agreement again. Not the economic costs - because history shows that a warmer planet is (overall) a friendlier planet. However, burning fossil fuels is pretty short-sighted, because they are irreplaceable. Nuclear and solar (if we can solve the storage problems) are the way to go. No disagreement there.

            • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday July 15 2015, @08:43PM

              by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 15 2015, @08:43PM (#209576) Journal

              Let's home in on #4 since you're thinking there's a parallel there.

              The Great Oxygenation Event [wikipedia.org] happened over the course of billions of years and the difference of before and after was a planet that couldn't support multicellular life and one that could. That's a really big deal.

              See that "fast" big spike at the end of the graph in that link? That's about 100 million years, and it's the 100 million years in which land-based life cropped up. The whole time there's been amphibians, mammals, trees, reptiles, almost everything you think of when you think of life has been after that spike.

              The changes in those times are extremely gradual compared to the 1.5 degrees C in 1.5 centuries we've seen lately. Global warming's effects really are unprecedented shifts, and in this conversation we're comparing them to quite possibly the biggest change in earth's atmospheric history. It's no small thing to be neglected or discounted.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by gnuman on Wednesday July 15 2015, @04:48PM

        by gnuman (5013) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @04:48PM (#209450)

        5. Everyone believes they are not going to die.

        Think about that. The most likely place a person will die (aside from warzones and some American suburbs) is because of traffic crashes, yet there is very little apprehension about that. When was the last time people actually obeyed the speed limit and drove under it? And then do a survey about apprehension about terrorism or ebola?

        The same mentality applies to AGW. People don't believe that *their* actions are a cause of it. Just like they don't think that DUI or texting or talking on their phone is going to kill them and/or someone else. They believe they are "good people" and "good people" can't do "bad things".

      • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:29PM

        by curunir_wolf (4772) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:29PM (#209466)

        2. A pseudo-religious belief in infinite economic growth, which AGW specifically challenges

        I'm curious about this idea. How does AGW specifically challenge infinite economic growth? I thought the point was to move to renewables, conservation and increased efficiency and away from fossil fuels. One of the selling points I hear all the time is that don't have to give up industry and jobs, just have more green jobs that will improve the economy. Is your view that it requires contraction? Limiting population growth is certainly part of the solution space, but not economic improvement.

        Besides, the driver of this infinite economic growth requirement is not fossil fuels, it's the fiat monetary system and central banking in a fractional reserve banking system, as well as a significant welfare state (social safety net, if you prefer). A comprehensive global plan for climate change would actually increase the reliance on these things.

        Just curious what your viewpoint is on point.

        --
        I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:04PM

          by fritsd (4586) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:04PM (#209665) Journal

          I have unfortunately forgotten most of what I read about this topic on the Oildrum blog. So correct me if I'm wrong.

          The maximum energy input at the moment is maxed out fossil fuels (we're there) + maxed out renewable sources (we're not there yet).

          After the fossil fuels are gone, the maximum energy input is determined by the maxed out renewable sources.

          The ultimate source of energy for all renewable sources is the sun, which is a constant.

          So we're on an asymptote to a constant energy influx. How then can you have infinite economic growth, when just the population growth leads to a "Stand on Zanzibar" in a really short time (centuries)?

          And about money: money is a lot less real than the other things mentioned here. Wasn't there some economic bureau that defined the "Big Mac index", what amount of money do you need to buy a hamburger in your country?

          So with your "fiat monetary system" and "fractional reserve banking", you might have infinite economic growth, yes, but it doesn't matter for people if they have to work hard for a day to buy 3 hamburgers for $ 3, or if they have to work hard for a day to buy 3 hamburgers for 3 000 000 "zimbabwe $". And if you can't put food on the table with a day of work, as an average world citizen / breadwinner, then there's a problem.

          • (Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:20AM

            by curunir_wolf (4772) on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:20AM (#209698)

            So with your "fiat monetary system" and "fractional reserve banking", you might have infinite economic growth, yes, but it doesn't matter for people if they have to work hard for a day to buy 3 hamburgers for $ 3, or if they have to work hard for a day to buy 3 hamburgers for 3 000 000 "zimbabwe $". And if you can't put food on the table with a day of work, as an average world citizen / breadwinner, then there's a problem.

            Well, yes, you're correct. But the other feature is that it perpetually concentrates wealth. Eventually, regardless of the numeric value of the currency, it takes more and more work to make up for the continually inflating cost of goods. We are seeing this now in the disparate income growth of people in the US. Studies show how most incomes since remained flat, while high earners have seen income growth and low earners seeing less income (adjusting for inflation).

            --
            I am a crackpot
        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:38PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:38PM (#209911)

          Here's the expanded version of that argument:
          Premise A. Economic growth requires energy.
          Premise B. The only known sources of consistent energy are fossil fuels and biofuels, but biofuels have a maximum capacity that is far too inefficient to use universally.
          Conclusion C. Ergo (per A and B), sustainable economic growth demands consistent access to and use of fossil fuels.
          Premise D. AGW says you can't use fossil fuels in anything close to the levels we currently are.
          Conclusion E. Ergo (by contrapositive C and D), AGW puts an end to sustainable economic growth.

          I don't entirely agree with this argument, but many do (it's been driving US foreign policy for approximately the last 40 years). The weak point in the argument is Premise B: Environmentalists argue that solar + wind + biofuels + other alternatives + batteries + improved energy efficiency can provide the necessary capacity for growth, while technological utopia believers argue that a yet-to-be-discovered system for energy extraction (e.g. cold fusion) will come along and solve everything. I personally land mostly on the environmentalists' side on this question, but reasonable people can disagree about it.

          All of this is about real material economic growth, as in the expansion of the productive capacity of a society, as in producing 105 widgets when a year ago the same amount of human labor produced only 100 widgets. That is only tangentially related to fiat currency and central and reserve banking, which has to do with nominal growth (measured in money) more than real growth (measured in actual useful goods and services).

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @04:21PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @04:21PM (#209434)

    Have you checked who is behind climatedepot.com?

  • (Score: 4, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:59PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:59PM (#209481) Journal

    Ah, it must be time to ramp up the panic just ahead of the Climate Change Conference. We had this the last time as well - all sorts of hyperventilating in the months leading up to the conference.
     
    You mean the Climate Change Conference that happened a week ago?
     
    There goes that hypothesis...
     
      see for yourself, Jul 7-10. [commonfuture-paris2015.org]