Global Warming very likely man made

[Bungee Jumper]

What in the hell does your example of wood pricing based on its scarcity have on its impact on pollution?

 

It's statistics. He read it on a Stanford web site. You just don't understand it.

[GG]

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962. We've had the last 45 years to realize pollution is a problem, and to deal effectively with it. We haven't done so yet, and I don't expect things to change anytime soon. Sure, it's possible that a combination of new technology and higher oil prices will force us to be somewhat less irresponsible about vehicles in the future than we are today. But a per-unit pollution tax is absolutely essential in order to force polluters to internalize the costs they impose; and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

As for the wood pricing example I mentioned, that was merely to illustrate how, in general, the free market's pricing mechanism produces economically optimal outcomes. Negative externality behaviors such as pollution are an exception to that general rule.

 

Another swing and a miss. Pollution controls have been in place for decades. I don't think that we need to continue the debate on whether science has had the final word of the impact of human generated pollution on the environment. But, in any event, it's a good idea to reduce pollutants. Just like it was probably a good idea to stop killing whales to get their oil (but particularly better once oil was discovered as a wonder fuel). Notice that people weren't as concerned about the externalities of whale extinction, until whales were on the verge of extinction. Hence you can quantify the actual cost of that externality.

 

I also noticed that you're totally ignoring the cap & trade proposals that utilities and other industries are talking about. You must have some bug with the auto industry.

 

 

ps - If she could, Rachel Carson may want to ask people in the third world whether they prefer DDT spraying to malaria.

[Orton's Arm]

It's statistics. He read it on a Stanford web site. You just don't understand it.

Should they ever remove your gallbladder, there'd be nothing left of you. You're 50% gall, and 50% bladder. I described the regression effect (a.k.a regression toward the mean), which you ridiculed. I found a Hyperstats article to support what I was saying, which you ridiculed because it was named Hyperstats. Then I found articles from Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, and other credible sources; all of which supported what I'd been saying for the last 50 pages. You bringing up regression toward the mean is like Kevin Gilbride bringing up the Comeback Win.

[Bungee Jumper]

Should they ever remove your gallbladder, there'd be nothing left of you. You're 50% gall, and 50% bladder. I described the regression effect (a.k.a regression toward the mean), which you ridiculed. I found a Hyperstats article to support what I was saying, which you ridiculed because it was named Hyperstats. Then I found articles from Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, and other credible sources; all of which supported what I'd been saying for the last 50 pages. You bringing up regression toward the mean is like Kevin Gilbride bringing up the Comeback Win.

 

And if you'd ever understood any of the math, you'd know you were completely and utterly and hilariously wrong.

[Bungee Jumper]

ps - If she could, Rachel Carson may want to ask people in the third world whether they prefer DDT spraying to malaria.

 

There's valid public health reasons for preferring malaria over DDT (namely: DDT has a track record of making malaria epidemics worse in the long run). But Rachel Carson has gone on record as disagreeing with the direction the environmental movement has taken, regardless of how much they worship her and her book.

[Orton's Arm]

Another swing and a miss. Pollution controls have been in place for decades. I don't think that we need to continue the debate on whether science has had the final word of the impact of human generated pollution on the environment. But, in any event, it's a good idea to reduce pollutants. Just like it was probably a good idea to stop killing whales to get their oil (but particularly better once oil was discovered as a wonder fuel). Notice that people weren't as concerned about the externalities of whale extinction, until whales were on the verge of extinction. Hence you can quantify the actual cost of that externality.

 

I also noticed that you're totally ignoring the cap & trade proposals that utilities and other industries are talking about. You must have some bug with the auto industry.

ps - If she could, Rachel Carson may want to ask people in the third world whether they prefer DDT spraying to malaria.

Yes, pollution controls have been in place for decades. But the proliferation of SUVs and light pickup trucks shows that our pollution-related behavior is very far from being economically optimal. A per-unit pollution tax has the potential to fix this problem; but won't be implemented anytime soon due to political pressure from the automakers and oil companies. Yes, I do have "some bug" with the auto industry, because SUVs and light trucks are an obvious example of corporate lobbying and other factors resulting in pollution that's very clearly unnecessary.

 

Coal power plants already trade pollution allowance certificates. The problem is there are too many such certificates, which means their price is too low. It's better than nothing, but not economically optimal.

[Orton's Arm]

And if you'd ever understood any of the math, you'd know you were completely and utterly and hilariously wrong.

On the contrary, had you understood the statistical concept that I and other sources had presented, you wouldn't have disputed it. We could have moved on. Instead, your ignorance and incomprehension resulted in over 50 pages of debate.

[Bungee Jumper]

On the contrary, had you understood the statistical concept that I and other sources had presented, you wouldn't have disputed it. We could have moved on. Instead, your ignorance and incomprehension resulted in over 50 pages of debate.

 

 

Let me shout it for the cheap seats: MATH

 

Had you understood the math, you wouldn't have butchered the concepts, you idiot.

[GG]

Yes, pollution controls have been in place for decades. But the proliferation of SUVs and light pickup trucks shows that our pollution-related behavior is very far from being economically optimal. A per-unit pollution tax has the potential to fix this problem; but won't be implemented anytime soon due to political pressure from the automakers and oil companies. Yes, I do have "some bug" with the auto industry, because it's an obvious example of corporate lobbying and other factors resulting in pollution that's very clearly unnecessary.

 

Coal power plants already trade pollution allowance certificates. The problem is there are too many such certificates, which means their price is too low. It's better than nothing, but not economically optimal.

 

So now, lobbyists are responsible for consumer behavior?

 

Are you saying that the only thing that prevents a better system to control pollution is the lobbyist/politician tango?

[Bungee Jumper]

So now, lobbyists are responsible for consumer behavior?

 

Are you saying that the only thing that prevents a better system to control pollution is the lobbyist/politician tango?

 

 

Wouldn't that mean that lobbyists and politicians are responsible for consumer behavior?

 

 

It seems to be the prevalent belief, at any rate. The environmental laws in Maryland, at least, seem to be predicated on the idea that the state can legislate how the consumer will and will not spend their money...

 

...which I'm sure in some weird TPS/Holcomb's Arm/molson_golden world makes perfect sense. Too bad this is Earth.

[Orton's Arm]

Let me shout it for the cheap seats: MATH

 

Had you understood the math, you wouldn't have butchered the concepts, you idiot.

My conceptual explanation was the same as Stanford's. The fact that you chose to ridicule said explanation demonstrated only your own inability to intelligently discuss statistics.

[Bungee Jumper]

My conceptual explanation was the same as Stanford's. The fact that you chose to ridicule said explanation demonstrated only your own inability to intelligently discuss statistics.

 

No, it demonstrated your inability to understand math. Your conceptual explanation showed that you didn't understand the concepts, else you wouldn't have needed to parrot other people's colloquial explanations to justify your own ignorance.

 

Which is a common theme in your posts, come to think of it. When is the last time you had an original thought?

[Orton's Arm]

So now, lobbyists are responsible for consumer behavior?

 

Are you saying that the only thing that prevents a better system to control pollution is the lobbyist/politician tango?

I'm saying that the best response to the negative externality is a per-unit pollution tax. In the absence of such a tax, it's impossible for the free market to respond to pollution in anything close to an economically efficient manner. The reason such a tax doesn't exist for SUVs is because of corporate lobbying efforts.

 

The way the problem should be addressed is for new vehicle sales to be taxed on the basis of how much pollution the vehicle produces on a per-mile basis. Such a tax would create an economic incentive for companies to create the cleanest vehicles they can. The tax would force those who buy SUVs to internalize the costs of their own conspicuous consumption.

[Orton's Arm]

No, it demonstrated your inability to understand math. Your conceptual explanation showed that you didn't understand the concepts, else you wouldn't have needed to parrot other people's colloquial explanations to justify your own ignorance.

 

Which is a common theme in your posts, come to think of it. When is the last time you had an original thought?

When was the last time you had any sort of thought, original or otherwise? As for the parallel examples: I'd been giving my own I.Q. test example for some time before I came across Stanford's (nearly identical) example. To suggest I was "parroting" Stanford is almost as stupid as the other things you've written about regression toward the mean.

[Bungee Jumper]

When was the last time you had any sort of thought, original or otherwise? As for the parallel examples: I'd been giving my own I.Q. test example for some time before I came across Stanford's (nearly identical) example. To suggest I was "parroting" Stanford is almost as stupid as the other things you've written about regression toward the mean.

 

 

You mean those other stupid things I've written like...the mathematical concept of variance?

 

Again, we keep running up against your bullheaded refusal to discuss or even understand the actual concepts at issue. Your stubborn insistence on repeating the same incorrect nonsense doesn't begin to make it correct, whether it's math or genetics or economics or psychology or football or just about anything else you've ever discussed on the boards. The only reason we indulge it is because...frankly, it's just so damned funny. Like watching a four-year old try to play basketball with adults.

[GG]

I'm saying that the best response to the negative externality is a per-unit pollution tax. In the absence of such a tax, it's impossible for the free market to respond to pollution in anything close to an economically efficient manner. The reason such a tax doesn't exist for SUVs is because of corporate lobbying efforts.

 

Then it's not a free market, is it?

[Bungee Jumper]

Then it's not a free market, is it?

 

 

There's that, too.

 

Although I was too busy focusing on how taxing the consumer would force the manufacturers to build cleaner cars. And that's just two of the fallacies I found in his post.

[GG]

There's that, too.

 

Although I was too busy focusing on how taxing the consumer would force the manufacturers to build cleaner cars. And that's just two of the fallacies I found in his post.

 

I'm guessing by reducing demand for gas guzzlers. Of course the marginal impact would be relatively marginal, because the absolute pollution emitted by a Hummer relative to a four cylinder Accord is not that great. A far greater effect would be to hike the tax on gas by a $1 or $2.

[Bungee Jumper]

I'm guessing by reducing demand for gas guzzlers. Of course the marginal impact would be relatively marginal, because the absolute pollution emitted by a Hummer relative to a four cylinder Accord is not that great. A far greater effect would be to hike the tax on gas by a $1 or $2.

 

 

Wouldn't that encourage oil companies to produce cleaner gas?

[GG]

Wouldn't that encourage oil companies to produce cleaner gas?

 

It could, it would also make other technologies more economically viable, without Big Brother dictating the winners & losers (other than petro's)

[Bungee Jumper]

It could, it would also make other technologies more economically viable, without Big Brother dictating the winners & losers (other than petro's)

 

Actually, I was joking. Along the same lines that a pollution tax to consumers on cars would encourage manufactures to build cleaner cars - either that, or it's going to encourage consumers to pay more taxes. History says the latter, as most people don't factor in the cost of taxes to the cost of their operation or purchase of a car.

 

A gas tax, though...you're right, it would work differently. A gas tax would, in most people's minds, be considered an operational cost directly related to the car.

 

Or, you can just do it the Maryland way: the Clean Car Act requires that 2% of all cars sold next year be ultra-low emission. No one's yet been able to explain to me how the state is going to force retailers to sell specific types of cars.

[GG]

Or, you can just do it the Maryland way: the Clean Car Act requires that 2% of all cars sold next year be ultra-low emission. No one's yet been able to explain to me how the state is going to force retailers to sell specific types of cars.

 

Never mind the damage you'll likely inflict on the environment in getting the new fuels to the consumers.

[Bungee Jumper]

Never mind the damage you'll likely inflict on the environment in getting the new fuels to the consumers.

 

 

Don't need new fuels; the Prius is ULEV. You just need to convince people it's in their interest to buy them.

 

And the way Maryland plans to do that is...force the retailers to sell them. Dumb.

[GG]

Don't need new fuels; the Prius is ULEV. You just need to convince people it's in their interest to buy them.

 

And the way Maryland plans to do that is...force the retailers to sell them. Dumb.

 

Nice timing:

 

Is It Time for a New Tax on Energy?

Economists Say Government Should Foster Alternatives – But Not How Bush Proposes

By PHIL IZZO

February 8, 2007 3:12 p.m.

 

The government should encourage development of alternatives to fossil fuels, economists said in a WSJ.com survey. But most say the best way to do that isn't in President Bush's energy proposals: a new tax on fossil fuels.

 

Forty of 47 economists who answered the question said the government should help champion alternative fuels. "Economists generally are in favor of free-market solutions, but there are times when you need to intervene," said David Wyss at Standard & Poor's Corp. "We're already in the danger zone" because of the outlook for oil supplies and concerns about climate change, he said.

 

A majority of the economists said a tax on fossil fuels would be the most economically sound way to encourage alternatives. A tax would raise the price of fossil fuels and make alternatives, which today often are more costly to produce, more competitive in the consumer market. "A tax puts pressure on the market, rather than forcing an artificial solution on it," said Mr. Wyss.

 

...

 

full article

[Bungee Jumper]

Nice timing:

 

 

 

full article

 

 

The only problem with that in practice is that it will not make alternative sources of energy more affordable. Just more marketable. Raising the prices of cheaper alternatives (i.e. fossil fuels) does not necessarily encourage innovation in alternative fuels, just consumption of them.

 

It's not necessarily environmentally sound, either. People tend to underestimate the environmental footprint of alternative sources of energy. I've seen compelling analysis (from hard-core environmentalists) that suggest that the process of farming, harvesting, and processing bio-diesel might be more environmentally damaging than fossil fuels are now.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The only problem with that in practice is that it will not make alternative sources of energy more affordable. Just more marketable. Raising the prices of cheaper alternatives (i.e. fossil fuels) does not necessarily encourage innovation in alternative fuels, just consumption of them.

 

It's not necessarily environmentally sound, either. People tend to underestimate the environmental footprint of alternative sources of energy. I've seen compelling analysis (from hard-core environmentalists) that suggest that the process of farming, harvesting, and processing bio-diesel might be more environmentally damaging than fossil fuels are now.

 

Bingo!

[Orton's Arm]

You mean those other stupid things I've written like...the mathematical concept of variance?

 

Again, we keep running up against your bullheaded refusal to discuss or even understand the actual concepts at issue. Your stubborn insistence on repeating the same incorrect nonsense doesn't begin to make it correct, whether it's math or genetics or economics or psychology or football or just about anything else you've ever discussed on the boards. The only reason we indulge it is because...frankly, it's just so damned funny. Like watching a four-year old try to play basketball with adults.

You seem to think that a comment like "you're too stupid to understand variance" constitutes a perfectly intelligent and legitimate contribution to a discussion of regression toward the mean. I'm sorry, but your inability or refusal to contribute anything constructive or useful would get you laughed out of any intellectually credible discussion forum.

[Orton's Arm]

There's that, too.

 

Although I was too busy focusing on how taxing the consumer would force the manufacturers to build cleaner cars. And that's just two of the fallacies I found in his post.

I'm sorry, but you clearly know too little about economics to try to point out fallacies in my posts. Say you worked the tax so that it was $0 for an electric car, $1,000 for a Honda Civic, and $10,000 for a Hummer. You force the car dealers to put that tax information on the stickers when they're selling the cars. Taxes like that will radically affect consumer behavior. That, in turn, will radically affect the behavior of car manufacturers.

 

@GG: good article on the gas tax. I'm certainly in favor of a higher gas tax. But I like the above tax even better. 1) It hits potential SUV buyers upfront; where they're most likely to pay attention, 2) you can structure the tax in a way which creates very little punishment for a sensible, fuel-efficient vehicle, but drastic punishment for a gas guzzler. That would create a more drastic vehicle buying change than merely making gas more expensive, and 3) the tax I've described would do little or no harm to the little guy. The little guy typically isn't engaging in conspicuous consumption by buying an SUV in the first place, or else he's buying his car used. The gas tax hurts the little guy a lot more than the tax I'm proposing.

[/dev/null]

I'm sorry, but you clearly know too little about economics to try to point out fallacies in my posts. Say you worked the tax so that it was $0 for an electric car, $1,000 for a Honda Civic, and $10,000 for a Hummer. You force the car dealers to put that tax information on the stickers when they're selling the cars. Taxes like that will radically affect consumer behavior. That, in turn, will radically affect the behavior of car manufacturers.

 

@GG: good article on the gas tax. I'm certainly in favor of a higher gas tax. But I like the above tax even better. 1) It hits potential SUV buyers upfront; where they're most likely to pay attention, 2) you can structure the tax in a way which creates very little punishment for a sensible, fuel-efficient vehicle, but drastic punishment for a gas guzzler. That would create a more drastic vehicle buying change than merely making gas more expensive, and 3) the tax I've described would do little or no harm to the little guy. The little guy typically isn't engaging in conspicuous consumption by buying an SUV in the first place, or else he's buying his car used. The gas tax hurts the little guy a lot more than the tax I'm proposing.

 

An interesting idea, except it would create more hybdrid drivers

 

And as everyone knows people who drive hybrids are the leading producers of smug

[Bungee Jumper]

You seem to think that a comment like "you're too stupid to understand variance" constitutes a perfectly intelligent and legitimate contribution to a discussion of regression toward the mean. I'm sorry, but your inability or refusal to contribute anything constructive or useful would get you laughed out of any intellectually credible discussion forum.

 

 

No, a perfectly intelligent and legitimate contribution to a discussion of regression toward the mean would involve a discussion of variance. Which I did. Specifically, and clearly, with my startlingly clear dice example. You, on the other hand, limited your argument to "Stanford says so! I'm special, I'm special!" Because you're too stupid to understand variance, or any other mathematical concept.

 

You see, it's the difference between discussing math, as I was, and discussing a pile of bull sh-- that just happens to bear a passing resemblance to math to people who don't even begin to understand math, as you were doing. But gosh darn it, you're so damned cute when you're doing it!

[Bungee Jumper]

I'm sorry, but you clearly know too little about economics to try to point out fallacies in my posts. Say you worked the tax so that it was $0 for an electric car, $1,000 for a Honda Civic, and $10,000 for a Hummer. You force the car dealers to put that tax information on the stickers when they're selling the cars. Taxes like that will radically affect consumer behavior. That, in turn, will radically affect the behavior of car manufacturers.

 

@GG: good article on the gas tax. I'm certainly in favor of a higher gas tax. But I like the above tax even better. 1) It hits potential SUV buyers upfront; where they're most likely to pay attention, 2) you can structure the tax in a way which creates very little punishment for a sensible, fuel-efficient vehicle, but drastic punishment for a gas guzzler. That would create a more drastic vehicle buying change than merely making gas more expensive, and 3) the tax I've described would do little or no harm to the little guy. The little guy typically isn't engaging in conspicuous consumption by buying an SUV in the first place, or else he's buying his car used. The gas tax hurts the little guy a lot more than the tax I'm proposing.

 

Never claimed to know much about economics. Doesn't change the fact that I know more than you about it.

[Orton's Arm]

No, a perfectly intelligent and legitimate contribution to a discussion of regression toward the mean would involve a discussion of variance. Which I did. Specifically, and clearly, with my startlingly clear dice example. You, on the other hand, limited your argument to "Stanford says so! I'm special, I'm special!" Because you're too stupid to understand variance, or any other mathematical concept.

 

You see, it's the difference between discussing math, as I was, and discussing a pile of bull sh-- that just happens to bear a passing resemblance to math to people who don't even begin to understand math, as you were doing. But gosh darn it, you're so damned cute when you're doing it!

Your dice example showed that when initial test results are determined entirely by random chance, retesting those who obtained extreme scores will, on average, result in complete regression toward the population's mean. I'd never disputed that point. I'm not sure what you hoped to add to the discussion by bringing in your dice example; but it certainly did nothing to contradict the statements I'd been making from the very beginning.

 

The specific claim I made was that if you gather a group of people who scored a 140 on an initial I.Q. test, and if you ask the group to retake the test, the people in the group will, on average, score somewhat less well the second time around. You ridiculed the claim when I first made it. After I found support for that claim from Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, the University of Washington, and the EPA, you admitted the phenomenon itself was valid. Oddly, that admission didn't deter you from continuing to poke fun at the phenomenon, or at me for having described it.

[Bungee Jumper]

Your dice example showed that when initial test results are determined entirely by random chance, retesting those who obtained extreme scores will, on average, result in complete regression toward the population's mean. I'd never disputed that point. I'm not sure what you hoped to add to the discussion by bringing in your dice example; but it certainly did nothing to contradict the statements I'd been making from the very beginning.

 

The specific claim I made was that if you gather a group of people who scored a 140 on an initial I.Q. test, and if you ask the group to retake the test, the people in the group will, on average, score somewhat less well the second time around. You ridiculed the claim when I first made it. After I found support for that claim from Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, the University of Washington, and the EPA, you admitted the phenomenon itself was valid. Oddly, that admission didn't deter you from continuing to poke fun at the phenomenon, or at me for having described it.

 

It's truly amazing. I don't even have to read your posts. I just know the correct response is: you still don't know what you're talking about.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

It's truly amazing. I don't even have to read your posts. I just know the correct response is: you still don't know what you're talking about.

[yall]

I don't think I have ever seen a thread discussing statistics cause such a long lasting ruckus that spilled over into almost every other thread.

 

I feel like I'm posting in a Reese's commercial....

 

"You got your regression in my global warming!"

[GG]

I'm sorry, but you clearly know too little about economics to try to point out fallacies in my posts. Say you worked the tax so that it was $0 for an electric car, $1,000 for a Honda Civic, and $10,000 for a Hummer. You force the car dealers to put that tax information on the stickers when they're selling the cars. Taxes like that will radically affect consumer behavior. That, in turn, will radically affect the behavior of car manufacturers.

 

@GG: good article on the gas tax. I'm certainly in favor of a higher gas tax. But I like the above tax even better. 1) It hits potential SUV buyers upfront; where they're most likely to pay attention, 2) you can structure the tax in a way which creates very little punishment for a sensible, fuel-efficient vehicle, but drastic punishment for a gas guzzler. That would create a more drastic vehicle buying change than merely making gas more expensive, and 3) the tax I've described would do little or no harm to the little guy. The little guy typically isn't engaging in conspicuous consumption by buying an SUV in the first place, or else he's buying his car used. The gas tax hurts the little guy a lot more than the tax I'm proposing.

 

And you know too little of anything other than what sticks in your head to see the obvious problem with another of your master plans.

 

Tell me, MENSA, if you enact this tax plan of yours, how will you fill up the electric car? How much more electricity will be cycled over an already stressed national grid? How will that electricity be generated - coal, oil, or gas fired plants? How will you dispose the batteries? Or is your goal to get people to drive less? Won't that pull them back to the cities, and cause infrastructure issues, since cities don't have the capacity to handle the mass population influx?

 

Or is this a back way to your eugenics plan to kill off the stupid, so the smarties will have the world to themselves?

[Ramius]

And you know too little of anything other than what sticks in your head to see the obvious problem with another of your master plans.

 

Tell me, MENSA, if you enact this tax plan of yours, how will you fill up the electric car? How much more electricity will be cycled over an already stressed national grid? How will that electricity be generated - coal, oil, or gas fired plants? How will you dispose the batteries? Or is your goal to get people to drive less? Won't that pull them back to the cities, and cause infrastructure issues, since cities don't have the capacity to handle the mass population influx?

 

Or is this a back way to your eugenics plan to kill off the stupid, so the smarties will have the world to themselves?

 

stop right there. you know he isnt capable of critical thought.

[Alaska Darin]

And you know too little of anything other than what sticks in your head to see the obvious problem with another of your master plans.

 

Tell me, MENSA, if you enact this tax plan of yours, how will you fill up the electric car? How much more electricity will be cycled over an already stressed national grid? How will that electricity be generated - coal, oil, or gas fired plants? How will you dispose the batteries? Or is your goal to get people to drive less? Won't that pull them back to the cities, and cause infrastructure issues, since cities don't have the capacity to handle the mass population influx?

 

Or is this a back way to your eugenics plan to kill off the stupid, so the smarties will have the world to themselves?

You mean there's a butterfly effect to all this "feel good" crap?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

NUKES.

 

Build nuke plants to generate electricity, encourage more plug-in hybrids.

 

That change alone would amount to a significant reduction in fossil fuels usage. And don't tell me it isn't safe. Those idiot Frenchmen generate a HUGE portion of their electric via nuclear fission.

[Orton's Arm]

It's truly amazing. I don't even have to read your posts. I just know the correct response is: you still don't know what you're talking about.

And yet you get so annoyed when I point out that you make unfair and inaccurate assumptions!