A new open thread for climate solutions in the new year (and the soon-to-be new US administration actions). As for the climate science open threads, please try to renew your commitment to constructive dialog that prioritises light over heat (like LED bulbs for instance!). Thanks!
149 Barton Paul Levenson:
12 Jan 2021 at 6:41 AM
K 128: Taxes fund nothing.
BPL: So Killian doubles down on the stupidity. I guess he doesn’t receive Social Security.
It’s clear you have not and will not watch the videos I posted.
SS is a promise to pay. A debt for the gov’t. Numbers are transferred but no money is because there is nothing to be paid. I do not recieve SS. The gov’t promises to pay me back what they took in taxes. That money was destroyed. When I start taking SS, they will fund it by telling a bank to make my account look like it has X dollars. Those dollars to not exist for me unless or until take them out at a counter, ATM, etc. They do not exist for the bank until the gov’t sends them cash to cover accounts payable in cash. Like to fill up their ATM’s or if someone wants to withdraw cash. This is why banks hold a small fraction of the “money” on their books in the bank. It doesn’t need to exist in the real world, and does not.
The government does not need to collect a single penny in taxes to fund SS. It’s just an archaic debt created by the promise to pay an amount equal to a percentage of income earned from work. My “taxes” are not collected in a box somewhere until I ask for them later. You could change SS to UBI for all tomorrow and it wouldn’t require any taxes whatseover unless the resulting spending brought on inflation. In fact, that is the problem with UBI: It essentially results in full employment, and that can trigger inflation.
148 Piotr:
12 Jan 2021 at 1:00 AM
BUT because it was not founded by Nobel himself – then it is as worthless and ridiculous as: “ Nobel in Theories of Faeries “.
Correct. Rather, it is worthless because economics is worthless. Good old Alfred apparently was no fool. Sadly, we cannot say the same of the committee.
The real issue here is you still think economics is sensical. I am no longer under that delusion.
Please don’t include me in that description.
I absolutely do. You repeat false statements endlessly. Lying is rude. Stop lying is the solution.
But to your credit you have toned things down in these latest comments. Just keep that up and nobody will complain.
Patronizing is rude, hypocritical.
But you shouldn’t be included…
Now, do you see? I post the evidence I have spoken of for years and rather than go, “Ah, you know, he was right. Cool. Let’s all chill out,” you choose to fan the flames.
So, yes, you are included.
I haven’t posted any lies or strawman arguments, unless its occasional misquote by accident.
Just gonna leave this right here…
AND even if I was guilty of those things, which I’m not, then two wrongs don’t make a right.
Aaaand this.
I. Just. Can’t.
I haven’t shifted my stance. I had much the same views on how humanity should deal with environmental problems since right back in the early 1980s
Your complete lack of self-awareness is a serious problem. It makes resolving any disagreement impossible.
144
nigelj says:
11 Jan 2021 at 9:42 PM
Killian @137
Yes a few people made snarky, impolite comments to you back then in 2015, but that is not a justifiable reason for you to escalate things with even worse personal abuse.
THAT’s what you got out of that? That there were a few posts back in 2015, and then I went on a 6-year wild ride through this forum?
I’m gonna stop now because I’m about as angry at you as I have ever been. this is egregious. This gets directly at your lack of honesty.
“KM: “I have tried and cannot imagine a truly sustainable wind generator. Perhaps if you could get all but the copper and magnets out of the windmill, like all wood, e.g., then maybe.”
“Killian: Wow. Are you really saying that sustainability requires going back to the Bronze Age (ie., steel is not to be considered ‘sustainable’?)”
How in the actual %@#& do you cut and paste and STILL get the names backwards?
Enough… this is futile.
The ‘point’ I made is that the net result of this ‘process’ is the funds available to government are not going to be infinite or much larger than previously so there is only so much government can spend them on.
It is clear you have not watched the videos posted.
Stop responding to me, on any topic whatsoever, because that is the only way there will be peace between us.
142 Kevin McKinney:
11 Jan 2021 at 6:49 PM
But thanks for taking a restrained tone this time, at least in the bit I read.
Don’t patronize, Kevin, while claiming to not be part of the problem.
You started the issues between us, not me. You took my critique of your support for CCL personally. Then you joined the “Peanut Gallery” as I came to term the constant feeding frenzy. Before that point, you and I had had no troubles because I do not initiate shittiness. You did.
Seriously, go back and read the posts in question.
And the next time someone tries to stop a long pattern of negativity, do not respond by patting them on the head while convincing yourself you were “just being polite.” I am a goddamned teacher. I have said this before. You think I cannot manage my own behavior?
You people here have gotten what you deserve, no more, no less. Take responsibility for yourself if you want this forum to change.
Well, three strikes and you’re out.
I tried.
You are collectively unteachable.
I view economics as a way to try to track and understand society’s activities, but the focus on it here, on a climate science site, seems misplaced. Three pages of non-experts (to be kind) stumbling around in the dark. Whatever needs to get done can get done, however they structure it and whatever they decide to call it. It reminds me (although this is from memory and not necessarily entirely accurate) of Bohr’s comment when he learned after the war of the scale of the Manhattan Project. He had earlier expressed a view that it would be nearly impossible, and when pressed afterward, he said, “see, I told you they couldn’t do it without turning a large portion of the country into a factory.” The point is that it was a massive undertaking, and they just did it.
With efficiency squeezing jobs out of existence, we will have the labor. Private capital is abundant and willing (witness Tesla). Aside from managing a migration from the coasts, what else will keep people busy?
Trying to scroll past the endless screeds of arguments, right or wrong, I am reminded that when I checked today’s news just now, I wished that the NYTimes would simply not report what Trump says any more, since it amplifies it. I just want to talk about other things, and see other news.
There is a lot going on in the world.
Killian, I hope you mean it that you are done with us. It is not enough to be right. If you are, you are driving people away. You are just one person among billions, and your manners are execrable. I repeat:
It is not enough to be right
And those who answer him, at length and in detail, are almost as bad. They are amplifying the message they think is wrong.
This is a net loss for the rest of us.
This is not the only ongoing argument taking up page after page, day after day, year after year, and it has devalued this comment section in a big way.
We are all trying to muddle through some bad stuff, and endless argument solves nothing.
at JK at 153: Yes, I have been wondering how much explicit we need to be to link the econ discussion to climate change. The link is that the cost of something (or anything) like the new green deal is regularly presented as a big part of the reason why we cannot or should not do a thing.
Cost for all the forced responses that can be explored needs to be addressed somehow. Hence, from my perspective, the need for discussion of MMT (or any other funding mechanism) to fund the forced responses that we choose.
I like a lot of legislative ideas and big system programs that would help us address and reduce the impact of global warming. The cost of the things we must do is rather meaningless, but folks who are opposed to making needed changes routinely raise the cost as if it is determinative.
Cheers
Mike
Susan Anderson:
Thank you, Susan, you’re our collective conscience 8^). Imagine a RealClimate with only substantive comments! Alas, that is not this blog.
Mike:
A good policy. I no doubt miss some useful information when I skim or skip comments by certain often-vexatious regulars. My random rejoinders are sometimes wide of their mark, as a result. I apologize to any climate realists I’ve misrepresented. Be assured, my genuine enmity is reserved for science-denialists, racists and other overtly anti-social sorts. The ones who comment here, with often-transparent cognitive motivations, tend to offer broad targets. Toward them, it’s “weapons free”. Climate realists should point their lethal wits at the main enemy, however! Some RC regulars are able to correct other climate realists’ errors without antagonism, and even with gentle humor, properly signalled as such. Yet we all represent ourselves best when we leave out naked aggression toward nominal allies, whether or not we think they deserve it ;^D. If we type it, we edit it away in “pre-posting self-review” (PPSR). Failing that, we’re merely recreational typists (h/t Hank Roberts, wherever he is). That might be permissible, but can safely be ignored. IMHO, of course.
Killian: This forum has convinced itself I created the problem.
AB: Nope. You’ve convinced yourself that finding the Original Sin is relevant. Nobody else cares what happened in 1923, or whenever. That was my post’s point, that it is everyone’s responsibility to go on from here, whether it was Joe Hatfield or Wayne McCoy who drew first blood.
______
Killian on MMT: it is a new understanding of how economics works
AB: Yes. Policies can arise from insights that any new way of looking at things brings, such as a new type of math. Radians are weird, eh?
____________________
BPL: And you believed him? You took him at face value? Dear God, Al, how naive are you?
AB: I place pins in things, and then draw threads back to old data to see if they harmonize. New data always links back to pins, and if a situation tests a pin I’ll help the experiment along, as long as I don’t convey a false impression of myself.
Is that similar to what you do?
______________
K 128: Taxes fund nothing.
BPL: So Killian doubles down on the stupidity. I guess he doesn’t receive Social Security.
AB: Taxes fund nothing directly.
The “Taxes in” door is not linked to the “Money out” door. When the government needs cash it prints “bonds” to exchange for money.
BPL,
I see your point about the Social Security trust fund (if that’s your point). I think it’s a relic that needs to go away. It is a way for the wealthy to pretend that working people don’t pay taxes (by not including payroll taxes times two in taxes paid calculations) while simultaneously avoiding payroll taxes on much or all of their own income!
Income is income, whether gift, inheritance, realized (and unrealized) capital gains, or (if you’re a sucker) work. Tax it all the same, with Eisenhower-style tax brackets. Do the same with wealth. You own your house? Since you’re better off, shouldn’t you should pay a bit more tax than your neighbor who rents, instead of the current system that punishes your poor neighbor?
Killian ( ) Correct. Rather, it is worthless because economics is worthless.
Does your “ economics is worthless” apply ALSO to all YOUR numerous posts on economics, or only to the people like Krugman, i.e.: “You cited Krugman about MMT? Are you out of your damned mind? LOL… Let’s ask Trump about democracy next. Bwahahahahaha!!!!! ”
And you are moving the goalposts, again: the discussion was NOT about your opinion on the field of economics, but about your dismissing an opponent with: “There is no such thing [like] a nobel prize in economics.”- see my post to which you, ehem, “respond”?
Piotr (148): Strong claims require strong evidence. Your claim is as strong as they get:“ There is no such thing”, “fallacy”, “That’s like getting a Nobel in Theories of Faeries“.
Your evidence, on the other hand, not so strong, more like trying to get out on a technicality:
yes – there is an award called usually: “The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences”, officially: “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”, administered by the Nobel Foundation, with laureates selected by the Nobel Foundation and listed by the foundation next to the laureates of Nobel Prizes, BUT it was not … founded by Nobel himself.
On its own, your opinion “economics is worthless” might be brilliant, but
in this discussion, i.e. for proving the NON-EXISTENCE of that prize (“There is no such thing “) – it is, well, worthless.
Killian @150, just briefly…
“Let me say this real slow for you: Printing money and not recalling it with taxes *is* *not* *applying* *MMT,* it is doing what those idiots on Capitol Hill have done since the founding of the nation.”
Sorry I misinterpreted this, but all the rest of what I said isnt affected and I stand by it.
“Again, MMT is not a new economics system, like Capitalism, Democratic Socialism, Communism, etc., it is a new explanation of what happens in an economy, particularly WRT the function of money.”
I dont agree. As many commentators point out MMT ‘is’ a new system (of financing). Nothing like this has been done before, not at any scale. I can only refer you to links I have posted and just google critiques of the system.
“They will realize they can raise taxes on the 1%, if sanity prevails, to slow an overheating economy. ”
In theory manipulation of taxes would work to reduce an overheated economy. In practice its really quite difficult making it work. Read some of the detailed critiques. And raising taxes is very difficult in tax adverse countries like America. You might also have to raise taxes on more than the 1% to make MMT work. The whole taxation thing doesn’t look plausible to me.
“The real danger of MMT is it justifies a lot of spending, which pushes growth. It will make it harder to reduce consumption once it is realized austerity is an ideology, not a good economic policy.”
It could do. And that is another one of the practical difficulties with the MMT idea.
—————————————–
Killian @153
“I absolutely do. You repeat false statements endlessly. Lying is rude. Stop lying is the solution.’
You are just mistaken. You give no examples and nobody else is accusing me of lying. I treat you no differently to anyone else. In fact I make a particular effort to copy and paste your comments.
“But to your credit you have toned things down in these latest comments. Just keep that up and nobody will complain.”
“Patronizing is rude, hypocritical.”
Oh for goodness sake you are so thin skinned there has to be something wrong with you. Are you under a lot of stress at home or work or something? I’m definitely not saying you are crazy, and most of us have psychological problems at some stage of our lives, but seriously man, see a health professional.
————————————–
Killian @137
“Yes a few people made snarky, impolite comments to you back then in 2015, but that is not a justifiable reason for you to escalate things with even worse personal abuse.”
“THAT’s what you got out of that? That there were a few posts back in 2015, and then I went on a 6-year wild ride through this forum?”
“I’m gonna stop now because I’m about as angry at you as I have ever been. this is egregious. This gets directly at your lack of honesty.”
I didnt say the ONLY time you got snarky comments was back then! You focused on 2015 so I was focusing on 2015. I mean seriously man you jump to an awful lot of conclusions.
“How in the actual %@#& do you cut and paste and STILL get the names backwards?”
This is what you posted: “#116 Kevin McKinney says,”“I have tried and cannot imagine a truly sustainable wind generator. Perhaps if you could get all but the copper and magnets out of the windmill, like all wood, e.g., then maybe.” So naturally I thought you were quoting something KM said. But ok you said it. The real point is you are inconsistent about whether you think the copper motor is sustainable or not. So is it sustainable or not?
You want me to stop responding to your comments? Then stop responding to my comments. You set this latest thing off @51 and 54 by responding to my comments.
BPL, I think you might have misinterpreted Killian on “taxes fund nothing”. He was I think saying that under a MMT system taxes collected are not actually spent they are essentially cancelled out. But I agree with all your other related criticisms.
Susan Anderson @157, robust argument and debate is kind of how things work, and its not unhealthy. But I agree there’s no need for the name calling and invective and empty mindless rhetoric, trivia, and unsupported personal allegations some people on this website seem to prefer.
[edit – just stop]
To try to put some on-topic material in this forum, Green Car Congress links to a paper at the journal Joule titled “Efficient Electrocatalytic CO2 Reduction to C2+ Alcohols at Defect-Site-Rich Cu Surface”. From the paper:
Electricity plus CO2 (and water, natch) to ethanol, propanol, etc. This is what parts of the solution look like.
163 nigelj:
12 Jan 2021 at 4:55 PM
Killian @150, just briefly…
“Let me say this real slow for you: Printing money and not recalling it with taxes *is* *not* *applying* *MMT,* it is doing what those idiots on Capitol Hill have done since the founding of the nation.”
Sorry I misinterpreted this
Indeed.
but all the rest of what I said isnt affected and I stand by it.
Ahem…
“Again, MMT is not a new economics system, like Capitalism, Democratic Socialism, Communism, etc., it is a new explanation of what happens in an economy, particularly WRT the function of money.”
I dont agree.
That doesn’t matter. You are responding to a fact with an opinion. MMT is a THEORY. It’s in the name: Modern Monetary Theory.
The problem with classical and neo-classical econ is that they have been based on philosophy. MMT looks at the actual *function* of the modern economy that was built on philosophies inappropriate for the task.
Part of your problem lies in never having accepted classical and neoclassical econ are bullshit. It causes you to misinterpret reality and theory.
As many commentators point out
Who? Names and quotes, please.
MMT ‘is’ a new system (of financing). Nothing like this has been done before, not at any scale.
As mike ably pointed out, it happens all the time, but in ignorance. MMT provides the theoretical framing to act *appropriately* to use money to achieve various, as opposed to accidentally doing the right thing for the wrong reasons once in a blue moon.
I can only refer you to links I have posted and just google critiques of the system.
They are wrong.
“They will realize they can raise taxes on the 1%, if sanity prevails, to slow an overheating economy. ”
In theory manipulation of taxes would work to reduce an overheated economy. In practice its really quite difficult making it work.
This is one of the reasons you are so difficult to interact with. My clause, “…if sanity prevails…” covers your entire comment on this point. i.e., you are being exceedingly redundant and do not seem to realize it.
AGAIN, if MMT were basic policy, then clearly the powers that be would have to have signed on.
nigel:
“I’m gonna stop now because I’m about as angry at you as I have ever been. this is egregious. This gets directly at your lack of honesty.”
I didnt say the ONLY time you got snarky comments was back then!
Yes, you did. That is exactly what you did. You said “a few people made snarky comments in 2015…” There is *no* *other* *way* *to* *interpret* *that.*
“a few people made snarky comments in 2015…” and “a few people made snarky comments in 2015 and have continued to consistently harass you ever since”
…ARE NOT THE SAME. Your justification is ridiculous:
You focused on 2015 so I was focusing on 2015.
Good Christ, man, I did not! I very clearly stated that was the *beginning* of it and it has continued to the present day. I beg you, learn to take responsibility! I am trying very hard to not call you a liar, but you have completely twisted what I wrote to excuse your poor response!
Aaaaargh!
I mean seriously man you jump to an awful lot of conclusions.
I did NOT. YOU screwed up, not me.
Explain to me how I can interpret this exceedingly consistent behavior of yours as unintentional… I am SOOO tired of this shit!
160 Al Bundy:
12 Jan 2021 at 1:47 PM
Killian: This forum has convinced itself I created the problem.
AB: Nope. You’ve convinced yourself that finding the Original Sin is relevant.
Wrong, Al. Part of the reason this has gone on so long is because of this dynamic. Like MAGAs, the core posters here got tired of reality being thrown in their faces, started getting mean about it, it became “the thing to do” to trash anything I posted, and when I fought back it became the norm to pretend I had no reason to and was just a rude and belligerent person.
Yet, the bulk of my career has been as a teacher and counselor. Hardly the career a bully would be able to maintain.
People who came to this forum post-2015 do not know this history. They see the dynamic as it is now, with my tolerance long past its GAF date, and assume I am the problem.
None of this really matters, but the record being correct does matter to me, even if some count that a flaw.
I am working hard at being honest and direct w/o the vitriol with the sincere hope this can all die out, a dearly hope this month’s thread is the last time any of this need be discussed, but posts like yours and susan’s make it hard.
159 Mal Adapted:
12 Jan 2021 at 1:45 PM
Some RC regulars are able to correct other climate realists’ errors without antagonism, and even with gentle humor, properly signalled as such. Yet we all represent ourselves best when we leave out naked aggression toward nominal allies, whether or not we think they deserve it ;^D.
Mal, you are one of those whom, over the years, has treated with disrespect your allies. Some self-awareness goes a long way, I think you would agree in any other context. (The quote above serves as an insult to others. Surely you can understand this?)
Here’s hoping you apply it to this context going forward.
Killian @108
“That doesn’t matter. You are responding to a fact with an opinion. MMT is a THEORY. It’s in the name: Modern Monetary Theory.”
I was not responding to that. I was responding to the part of that statement about the argument that MMT describes how the system works, obvious in my comments about that element. And I dont agree that it does as previously stated at various points. Read my response to Mike.
“MMT ‘is’ a new system (of financing). Nothing like this has been done before, not at any scale.”
“As mike ably pointed out, it happens all the time, but in ignorance. ”
I dont know of any use of money printing along with deliberate manipulation of taxes to control any resultant inflation. Please quote some examples. All I know of is some limited money printing added on to the conventional government financing system, (which I think can be quite useful).
“This is one of the reasons you are so difficult to interact with. My clause, “…if sanity prevails…” covers your entire comment on this point. i.e., you are being exceedingly redundant and do not seem to realize it……AGAIN, if MMT were basic policy, then clearly the powers that be would have to have signed on.”
I dont recall that statement “if sanity prevails”. I might not have read that post or paragraph. But does it matter? Sanity isnt likely to prevail. Thats my whole point in making. Its going to be exceedingly hard to make MMT work in a practical sense for many reasons. Thats my main objection, made to others like Mike and AB, not just you.
——————————
Killian @169
“Yes, you did. That is exactly what you did. You said “a few people made snarky comments in 2015…” There is *no* *other* *way* *to* *interpret* *that.*”
Whatever. Maybe I could have been clearer what I really meant. It was never my intent to imply people more recently havent made nasty comments about what you have said. They have. And cant you see I was basically supporting your overall frigging point of view? So why would you zoom in one one statement? Be grateful I was giving you some support. All you damn well had to say in your response to me was that people have also been rude more recently.
Nobody here cares about any of this stuff apart from you. Cant you see that in all the negative comments above about your posts? You are filling the website up with silly stuff that has no relevance to the big issues.
Please understand this: People misinterpret things quite a lot, or make typos, or dont word things quite how they really want, including you. I could fill a book of examples. I assume you read discussions on this website. A good example right now is Zebra versus Piotr ( although I think piotr is mostly right in that debate) where there appear to be a lot of misinterpretations. Stop making such a huge issue out of it. It doesnt mean anyone is lying.
I’ve kept my response brief. I’m starting to agree with others that its best to scroll past your stuff. Its easy to google MMT, its not as if you are offering anything irreplaceable on the subject or any other subject for that matter.
—————————————
Here are 8 pages of links, annotated, related to the Forced Responses topic of this thread. Feel free to discuss something relevant.
https://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/697/power-world
Can I suggest that the moderators add a new recurring subtopic to the site. We have ‘Unforced Variations’ and ‘Forced Responses’. I think the signal to noise ratio would be massively improved by a monthly ‘Irrelevant Playground Spats’ that sane people could ignore. At least material that makes the Borehole can be wacky enough to raise a smile occasionally, but the whole name calling, he said/she said tennis matches and forensic examination of past posts for perceived slights that seems to have proliferated over the last few months is just pathetic.
K 152: it is worthless because economics is worthless.
BPL: No, Killian, your opinion about economics is worthless.
K 154: You people here have gotten what you deserve, no more, no less.
BPL: They were all mean to me! I didn’t do nothing! It’s their fault, not mine! The fact that nearly everyone in this whole forum has a problem with me means something is wrong, individually, with each and every one of them, not that something is wrong with me!
Here’s a new energy storage method that has widespread potential locations and would be extremely cheap. It can also store enough energy to provide backup for a long time:
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/01/13/new-cheap-electric-energy-storage-system-like-pumped-hydro-but-subterranean/
nigelj – At some point, somebody has to stop answering. As one of the more rational arguers, I beg you to be that person. [When I found answering only made it worse, I stopped trying. Let them have the last word. It is not a “robust” argument. It is a boring prolongation that has gone on far too long, losing value with each iteration. Think of a mother with two arguing youngsters. She is so fed up she doesn’t want to hear it any more. She refuses to assign blame. “Proving” one is “right” ad nauseam reinforces the “wrong”.]
—
I presume to give top honors to Russell, whose sometimes twisted but almost always accurate sense of humor is a delight, and Ray Ladbury. There are others, but today David Benson (~173) gave us a lovely link to BraveNewClimate.
—
Perhaps there should be a limit of one comment per day per blog post with a length restriction so that people addicting here are forced to go elsewhere. It would be a shame once in a while, but maybe some would formulate their own platforms and cross reference with links instead of taking advantage of the tolerance of the blog owners here to make it all about them and their pet peeve. The longer it goes on, the less meaningful it becomes.
If you could harness this wasted energy, think what could be accomplished.
In an attempt at something different, this is ominous news: “Earth’s ‘lungs’ could start deteriorating in as little as two decades”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/123931638/earths-lungs-could-start-deteriorating-in-as-little-as-two-decades
Some of the world’s biggest forests might start losing their carbon-sucking powers in just a few decades, says a study by New Zealand and US scientists.
We rely on plants to suck in a quarter or more of our fossil fuel emissions.
But, unless we slow global heating, up to half the world’s forests and grasslands could pass their peak carbon dioxide uptake within the next two to three decades, according to a study in the journal Science Advances by researchers at Northern Arizona University (NAU) and the University of Waikato.
Barton Paul Levenson @176
“They were all mean to me! ….etcetera”
Exactly.
———————————-
Susan Anderson @178,
I hear you, and I admit I should probably just ignore Killians comments and maybe some others on occasion. I find that hard for some reason, especially when people attack me, but note that at 172 I said Im going to be scrolling past most of his comments in future. I think most of the problems would be solved if moderation policy was enforced a bit more strictly. All other websites I participate in have a very low tolerance for name calling, constant accusations of lies, and personal fueds and empty rhetoric that goes on ad infinitum. Someone used the term bloviating. I like that term.
@177:
Do not take it seriously. The author of that piece is scientifically illiterate:
You can get 60,000 GW from a single pulse of a femtosecond laser, with negligible energy involved.
In the very next sentence, the author admits that the resource is inadequate to the task:
If the energy storage was 60,000 gigawatt-hours, it would be more like a week. Such fuzzy-minded thinkers have no business being involved in our energy policy, not even as voters.
Killian: I am working hard at being honest and direct w/o the vitriol with the sincere hope this can all die out, a dearly hope this month’s thread is the last time any of this need be discussed, but posts like yours and susan’s make it hard.
AB: Now, if you had used my comments alone as a rationale, then maybe. I’ve been known to be abrasive, and such a past colors current interpretations, such as when you interpreted as ‘patronizing’ what was obviously (to me) Kevin’s heartfelt welcoming of your current self-improvement project. Which is precisely the interpretive error Kevin warned you about!
But Susan? Ponder hard.
176 Barton Paul Levenson:
13 Jan 2021 at 8:57 AM
K 154: You people here have gotten what you deserve, no more, no less.
BPL: They were all mean to me! I didn’t do nothing! It’s their fault, not mine! The fact that nearly everyone in this whole forum has a problem with me means something is wrong, individually, with each and every one of them, not that something is wrong with me!
Correct. One hopes at some point you will take responsibility and stop the gaslighting. However, you, particularly, never could be expected to; you’re as hypocritical as any faux Christian I’ve ever met.
Mind you, this is an observation. I don’t care whether you are sincere are hypocritical in your “faith.” I am drawing a parallel between the sort of behavior one sees in faux Christians and your behavior here on this forum, which is consistently belligerent, and not just to me.
I have shown what I have claimed over the last five years is true: This forum, like virtually every other loosely-managed forum on the internet, became the playpen of the most frequent posters, and came to reflect their basic views. Essentially, it became a conservative, WRT climate science, space where the heterodox became unwelcome and maltreated.
And here, even as I work to bring the temperature down, here you are stoking the flames. But I am the problem?
Gaslighting. Hypocrisy. Again, these are not insults, they’re reality. It is what has happened on this forum since 2015 and what you perpetuate via these two responses to me.
Change or don’t. Up to you.
Given your responses to me have been nothing but insulting for a long time with literally no attempt at addressing anything substantive, there is no upside to continued interaction with you – which is why I almost never do. I will endeavor to make that absolute. No promises because it is difficult to let pure abuse slide, but I will give it a hell of shot.
182 Al Bundy says:
13 Jan 2021 at 5:30 PM
…such as when you interpreted as ‘patronizing’ what was obviously (to me) Kevin’s heartfelt welcoming
Does it matter if one is “heartfelt”, but patronizing? If he doesn’t realize he’s being patronizing, does he not need feedback?
Insults are like racism: The person being insulted determines whether there was an insult. Kevin should attempt to understand *why* I found it patronizing and try to not repeat the pattern.
But you make the same mistake:
of your current self-improvement project.
This is also patronizing. Self-improvement? Did you not read my response to Kevin in full? I am a TEACHER. I can clearly choose when and when not to be aggressive or how to respond to aggression, yet you imply I need to learn something or improve myself in some fashion. It’s insulting.
I don’t insult either of you in this way. I know you are capable of not being offensive. I show you the respect, though it seems strange to say in this context, of assuming you have control of yourselves and are choosing your behaviors. I am no more out of control than anyone else on this forum.
E.g., I have explained umpteen times here that one of the reasons you all can believe your gaslighting is legit is because, in a sense, I make it easy for you: I don’t make a distinction between small and big insults. I find such distinctions stupid, honestly, but most people think their “small” insult should only be met with a small insult in response. When I respond with both barrels, you think your original provocation is then justified.
I think the rest of the world is just plain bonkers in this regard.
Anywho… this will get us nowhere. I hope for, but do not expect, change. I am responsible for myself, so we’ll see if I choose to maintain my patience in the face of continued bullying. That is the current intent. But when it’s the whole core constantly coming after me, essentially all against one, it gets to be a bit much.
We shall see.
Which is precisely the interpretive error Kevin warned you about!
But Susan? Ponder hard.
175 Barton Paul Levenson:
13 Jan 2021 at 8:55 AM
K 152: it is worthless because economics is worthless.
BPL: No, Killian, your opinion about economics is worthless.
My views were prescient as I was saying it was nonsense long before it became common/popular. My views are heterodox, yours are obsolete. History will prove me right as heterodox views (Austrian school, steady-state, Doughnut, MMT, e.g.) are the only way to approach sustainability. However, even those are inadequate. We will return to the Commons of our first @ 290k years or we will fail utterly, for reasons I have stated often in the past.
Here are a couple hints as to why:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/01/12/nature-under-siege-scientists-sound-alarm-about-insect-apocalypse
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcosc.2020.615419/full
172 nigelj:
13 Jan 2021 at 12:53 AM
Killian @108
“That doesn’t matter. You are responding to a fact with an opinion. MMT is a THEORY. It’s in the name: Modern Monetary Theory.”
I was not responding to that. I was responding to the part of that statement about the argument that MMT describes how the system works, obvious in my comments about that element. And I dont agree that it does
This is not debatable, nigel, so there is no point trying to budge you off of your *beliefs* that neo-classical econ is legit. It is not. You seem to be avoiding reading Kelton, Keen and others. I suggest you eagerly read everything from them you can get your hands on or you will continue to serve up comments that have no connection to reality.
“As mike ably pointed out, it happens all the time, but in ignorance. ”
I dont know of any use of money printing along with deliberate manipulation of taxes to control any resultant inflation.
So? That was *exactly* mike’s point: That is not the process currently followed. It does, exactly, sometimes happen utterly by accident. MMT suggests it should be done with intent, and if it is, the economy will be healthier, economic equality will increase.
“This is one of the reasons you are so difficult to interact with. My clause, “…if sanity prevails…” covers your entire comment on this point. i.e., you are being exceedingly redundant and do not seem to realize it……AGAIN, if MMT were basic policy, then clearly the powers that be would have to have signed on.”
Sanity isnt likely to prevail. Thats my whole point in making. Its going to be exceedingly hard to make MMT work in a practical sense for many reasons.
This has become not just circular, but a whirlpool sucking us all down. We have tried to get you to understand what you are saying, but you cannot seem to wrap your head around it.
One more time: If MMT is adopted, it means those making decisions have come to understand it and set policy according to that understanding. Thus, the description of the true roles of money, debt and taxes will have become the norm resulting in more effective economic policies.
If it is not adopted then…. yeah…. it won’t be adopted. But money, debt and taxes will still function as MMT describes, but the policies will continue to be a mess because they will be in conflict with the true functions of those three concepts.
Thats my main objection, made to others like Mike and AB, not just you.
You seem to think we are just not able to understand you. In fact, we understand you perfectly. The problem is on your side: You are not yet understanding MMT.
This is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. (BTW, that concept is tossed around this forum as an epithet/insult. That is not appropriate. It is a very useful concept in understanding why we all sometimes are utterly wrong, but are blissfully unaware we haven’t a clue.) You don’t understand economics and MMT well enough to realize you are talking in self-contradictory circles.
That being the case, I leave it to others to try to help you understand this.
I think the collective shark frenzy this forum is all too often will continue to feed on itself.
I am not only willing to be wrong on this, but hope fervently that I am. And let me suggest, the continued engagement with denialists feeds this frenzy. Such anger and nastiness tend to spill over. People get worked up and carry that tension over to other conversations, often subconsciously. I submit that ending the troll feeding frenzy will go a long way toward changing the tenor of these forums.
Yes, that will leave some of you with a lot of time to fill. That’s not an insult, it’s just the truth. Many of you spend over, rough guess, half the bandwidth here arguing with denialists. I strongly suggest fighting with denialists is WAY past the peak of its return on investment curve and keeps the temperature here at a constant low boil.
Just sayin’.
Engineer-Poet @181
“You can get 60,000 GW from a single pulse of a femtosecond laser, with negligible energy involved.”
Quite a clever tantalising tid bit of information. Knowing EP there might be something in it. But how does that device work in practice as part of a storage device? I mean lazers like this appear to be used for cutting things so its not obvious. Not to me on this hot sleepy afternoon anyway.
And the 60,000 GW is all in optical power, so what does this mean in terms of work or equivalent electrical power that can be used for creating actual energy storage? How does that stack up against the alternatives? And how much does the device cost to build, compared to the more traditional alternatives? it sounds like a pretty big lazer for that output. How many pulses can be produced per unit of time?
This link could be on Unforced Variations but I include it here for the urgency:
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-earth-temperature-years.html
This should be of interest to anyone discussing the economics associated with climate action.
http://econintersect.com/pages/analysis/analysis.php?post=202101140148
BPL: Here’s a new energy storage method that has widespread potential locations and would be extremely cheap. It can also store enough energy to provide backup for a long time
K 181: Do not take it seriously. The author of that piece is scientifically illiterate… (goes on to point out unit errors, etc.).
BPL: So because the reporter isn’t a scientist, the thing he’s reporting on must not exist!
To the advocates of MMT on this website: This is why I get so very frustrated with you guys. I posted a couple of links several times with detailed criticisms of MMT. Nobody on this website has addressed them. I have not seen a video that addresses them certainly not properly, and Im not going to spend hours looking at multiple videos on the offchance they might.
YOU PEOPLE have to type out some detailed rebuttals with evidence. Thats how things are supposed to be done. Until you do that you have got nothing. You just fill up the website with MMT propaganda, hand waving, name calling (some of you) and shifting of goal posts.
Killian @186, thanks for the comment. Simply saying “neo-classical economics is not legit” is just an assertion, and I have never once accepted it is a perfect system, and you have not given one single specific, concrete example of MMT being used historically, just asserted that “It does, exactly, sometimes happen utterly by accident”.
You have made suggestions that if MMT is adopted everything should go reasonably well because people will “properly understand it”, but this looks very unlikely to me given the ‘nature’ of the MMT beast will be difficult to deal with. Sort of like playing with dynamite. You have made patronising, opinionated and unfounded claims that I “dont understand” while complaining other people do the same to you.
Now if the majority want the MMT system I will go along with that ( if a little bit reluctantly) because I’m not bloody minded and fixed minded and obstructionist, and it would probably be worth the risk. If it didn’t work we can always go back. This is the best I can say about it. And I have no objection to selective use of money printing in emergencies.
As per my previous post @172 I am now scrolling past a lot of your stuff and I will not be responding as often – something YOU wanted anyway, and my responses will largely be very short like this one, and mostly just to show others on this website where I stand.
“But the main weaknesses with the IPCC’s methodology are firstly that, in economics, it exclusively selects Neoclassical economists, and secondly, because there is no built-in review of one discipline’s findings by another, the conclusions of these Neoclassical economists about the dangers of climate change are reviewed only by other Neoclassical economists.”
This I do agree with. The neoclassical school is not rubbish, but is rather blinkered it its view that economic growth can just go on forever, and rather narrow in its focus the economic costs of a warming world. It makes obvious sense for the IPCC to consult a range of economic view points. Economics is ok in the sense its a social science that tries to document how markets work, but within economics there are different schools of thought about the roles of governments and markets and other issues, and so a range of these schools should obviously be consulted.
Susan Anderson:
Iterative thanks, Susan, this is the heart of the matter: This blog doesn’t exist for anyone’s narcissistic self-enhancement, and venting one’s suppurating spleen merely invites negative attention from the moderator(s). I endorse your suggestion of quantitative limits to individual outpourings on RC. Numeric limits are, at least, easy enough to automate*, so as not to require moderator attention. I, for one, would set them generously: Say, 10 comments or 10000 characters, whichever comes first, per blog post? Everyone would keep track of their own counts. Commenters with more to say could ask to submit a guest post. Each such request made inline to a thread would, of course, count toward each commenter’s limits, as would complaints about other commenters, gratuitous quotes and links to pop-culture tropes ;^).
Submissions beyond a limit should be truncated mid-sentence, or simply discarded in their entirety. An alternative would be to disemvowel the excess comment, then whisk it away to the Bore Hole, with a link embedded in the exceeded thread. There should probably be annual limits on total comments on all threads including the Bore Hole and Crank Shaft, too. I’m serious — and don’t call me Shirley. What do y’all think?
* Not that I’m volunteering to do the work, I hasten to add. I did that kind of thing for a living for 30 years, until I got tired of it. Now I’m re-tired. Right, I’ll just grab my hat and goat then ;^D!
BPL: So because the reporter isn’t a scientist, the thing he’s reporting on must not exist!
Barton, with a heavy heart (;-)) I have to agree with our E-Poet on this one …
– true, a mistake by a reporter do not prove that the thing he’s reporting on must not exist, but here it is … the reporter who does not exist: the article is “Sponsored Content” and it is written apparently by the people behind the concept and who look for funding for it – see the bottom of the article:
“Our company, PowerXpro*, LLC, does not have the capability to commercialize the patent-pending PHCAES technology. We are seeking an interested party to take over the whole project. Our goal is to see the project take fruition for the good of the world, rather than large profits.”
That fact that in their paid content they didn’t bother to check the one number that should have impressed the potential funders the most – the potential to store “ 60,000 gigawatts of power.” does not exactly inspire the confidence.
And the concluding sentence about “the good of the world” does not sound right
either – they come across as wishy-washy, overestimating the impact of their concept, or disingenuous.
Mal Adapted @195 word limits and numbers of posts sounds a bit arbitrary. Sometimes things do need detailed technical explanations. Brevity is generally great but not always.
I think all this website has to do is enforce its existing moderation policy better and use some commonsense. So no personal invective, nit pickery about definitions of words or nobel prizes, no pages of simple assertions, like posting a huge chunk of text and replying with “no” or “liar” or thats just silly” and nothing else, and rinsing and repeating. No personal fueds. Do that and I think most of the problems and excessively long posts and repetition would probably disappear.
But I do agree with most of what you say. Please dont take my response as some gigantic assault on your inner soul. Some people on this website seem to get very worked up.
Mal Adapted @195 to clarify “word limits and limits on the numbers of posts sounds a bit arbitrary….”
@188:
It doesn’t. I used that example to show where the author made a basic category error, confusing power with energy. No one who ever passed the physics coursework for an engineering degree would make such a fundamental mistake. I was picking errors like that out of magazines when I was in junior high!
They’re actually used for purposes like taking snapshots of chemical reactions in progress, grabbing spectra of short-lived intermediate products which can’t be analyzed any other way. Laser (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, LASER) cutters typically use CW CO2 lasers.
Considering that I’m due to get a bunch of snow dumped on me by Mother Nature, a hot sleepy afternoon sounds good right now.
Killian et al. K @ 154,5 “You think I cannot manage my own behavior?” Duh, tho you’re not alone. “I am a goddamned teacher.” “You are collectively unteachable.” Nicely juxtaposed. Haven’t scanned Realclimate in a few weeks, it’s just gotten worse. After all these years, losing patience with the endless sniping, self-therapy or whatever this has become. Lay folk arguing whether economics is real? I can find better analysis on my facebook feed. MODERATORS, you appear to favor a loose censoring style, and that’s fine, it’s your blog. But if you want to hold your interested lay-audience, maybe while you scan comments you could put the ones related to climate in red or something, because unless one is interested in the personality operas, it’s getting hard enough to find the content that it’s not worthwhile.