3 ms·

> or you can write your own Clojure one, like the one we had yesterday here at HN. The Clojure one we had yesterday that 1. looked only at data during the "ho

by gjm11 17y ago

> or you can write your own Clojure one, like the one we had yesterday here at HN. The Clojure one we had yesterday that 1. looked only at data during the "hockey-stick handle" period; 2. found, in his very first graph, a steady increase in temperatures over that period whose magnitude (>2 degrees C) was greater than that in the usual "hockey-stick" graph (~ 0.7 degrees C); 3. plotted a bunch more graphs in ways that would inevitably make changes of ~0.7 degrees invisible (look at the last one -- range from -20 to 80 degrees on the y-axis); 3. claimed to have shown by all this that the hockey-stick is not real? That one? > CO2 can get absorbed by the Oceans and other earth mechanisms and balance out. Perhaps it can, but since it's possible to measure CO2 levels and they are in fact increasing that's not actually happening.

yannis 17y ago
Just have a look at fig 4 at the paper I quoted above http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf You will see the 'hills' I mentioned above. I am not actually suggesting inaction I support any measures that will lower human impact on the planet, however, I am supporting good science and policies that do not have the word TAX in them.
- gjm11 17y ago
  How do you know that the best policies do not involve taxation? (If it's because you take it as an axiom that no good policy involves taxation, then the fact that you don't want taxation in this particular case is perfectly uninformative.)
  - yannis 17y ago
    It's because in general I believe tax money is not utilized effectively and their impact on demand is minimal. Non-tax policies could have similar effects. For example the government could impose a ban on manufacturing SUV vehicles or improve the public transport system. Increasing the age at which one could get a driver's license in the USA would probably reduce petrol consumption by a few percent (as more families have more than one car). What evidence do you have that the money received in tax would not purchase goods and services that would increase emissions? I never made an axiom that no good policy involves taxation. It was your assumption. The least you could have done was to ask me to clarify my position.
    - gjm11 17y ago
      > What evidence do you have that the money received in tax would not purchase goods and services that would increase emissions? Eh? Where did I say or imply that it wouldn't? I asked why you're so sure that taxation couldn't be part of the best policy. I didn't say I'm sure that it should be. I don't know what the best policy is. (In any case, surely what's relevant is not whether any tax revenue would go to purchasing things that increase emissions, but whether the net effect would be an increase in emissions.) > I never made an axiom. [...] It was your assumption. You might want to remind yourself of the meaning of the word "if". > The least you could have done was to ask me to clarify my position. Curiously, that is exactly what I did.
gjm11 17y ago
(Evidently I am unable to count to 4. Sorry about that.)

by gjm11 17y ago

yannis 17y ago

Just have a look at fig 4 at the paper I quoted above http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf You will see the 'hills' I mentioned above. I am not actually suggesting inaction I support any measures that will lower human impact on the planet, however, I am supporting good science and policies that do not have the word TAX in them.

gjm11 17y ago
How do you know that the best policies do not involve taxation? (If it's because you take it as an axiom that no good policy involves taxation, then the fact that you don't want taxation in this particular case is perfectly uninformative.)
- yannis 17y ago
  It's because in general I believe tax money is not utilized effectively and their impact on demand is minimal. Non-tax policies could have similar effects. For example the government could impose a ban on manufacturing SUV vehicles or improve the public transport system. Increasing the age at which one could get a driver's license in the USA would probably reduce petrol consumption by a few percent (as more families have more than one car). What evidence do you have that the money received in tax would not purchase goods and services that would increase emissions? I never made an axiom that no good policy involves taxation. It was your assumption. The least you could have done was to ask me to clarify my position.
  - gjm11 17y ago
    > What evidence do you have that the money received in tax would not purchase goods and services that would increase emissions? Eh? Where did I say or imply that it wouldn't? I asked why you're so sure that taxation couldn't be part of the best policy. I didn't say I'm sure that it should be. I don't know what the best policy is. (In any case, surely what's relevant is not whether any tax revenue would go to purchasing things that increase emissions, but whether the net effect would be an increase in emissions.) > I never made an axiom. [...] It was your assumption. You might want to remind yourself of the meaning of the word "if". > The least you could have done was to ask me to clarify my position. Curiously, that is exactly what I did.

gjm11 17y ago

(Evidently I am unable to count to 4. Sorry about that.)