Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re: 100% Consensus among scientific organizations (Score 1) 319

You're talking about "externalities," which are called that because they are EXTERNAL to economic considerations

Uhhh no. They are fundamental to economics. Please read James M. Buchanan and Wm. Craig Stubblebine Economica New Series, Vol. 29, No. 116 (Nov., 1962), pp. 371-384

Comment Re:Lies, big lies, and statistics (Score 1) 319

What kind of response did you expect to an unreferenced assertion? Again, if you believe that there was ever a consensus that New York would be under water in 2015 then you may be confused about the term "consensus." I would expect that you would not be able to find even a single peer reviewed paper making that claim.

Comment Re:100% Consensus on the need for urgent action (Score 1) 319

The atmosphere is currently gaining only about half of what we pump into it. How do we account for the missing CO2? We find some of that missing CO2 in the oceans. Measurements indicate that oceans are acidifying. That means the oceans are currently absorbing CO2. You are right that this may not continue to be the case in the future. Oceans could become a net source of CO2 rather than a net sync. -

Comment Re:Lies, big lies, and statistics (Score 1) 319

Agreed. At best they could say that "Climatologists have been warning that climate change may produce more extreme weather situations, and this may be a peek at the future to come.", not that this is evidence that this has already occurred. It may be the case that a trend is already emergin, but we would need much more data to establish a trend.

Comment Re:Lies, big lies, and statistics (Score 1) 319

Again, I'm glad we at least agree that there is a scientific consensus. Your post here demonstrates why it is valuable. It allows us to ignore the outliers and focus on what is credible. I'm glad we also agree that the IPCC is a great resource for cutting through the BS, and that it allows us to understand what is really known, what is conjecture, and what is merely a misrepresentation of the science.

Comment Re: 100% Consensus among scientific organizations (Score 1) 319

Economists disagree with you. A revenue neutral tax promotes market efficiencies that are lost when costs are absorbed by third parties (as is the case now). A revenue neutral carbon tax is actually a great way to let the market pick the winners and losers that will move us to the new energy economy.

there's no such thing as a revenue neutral tax

British Columbia has a revenue neutral carbon tax that is working quite well and enjoys popular support because the fees are in fact returned as dividends.

"Don't tell me I'm burning the candle at both ends -- tell me where to get more wax!!"