tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post3931185062280083892..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80196857213266759732009-12-04T08:20:05.396-05:002009-12-04T08:20:05.396-05:00Do the math?
You mean look at the price of comods...Do the math?<br /><br />You mean look at the price of comods for the past 150 years and see the trend point downwards far all this time making commods the worst single investment of the past 150 yesrs and I'm supposed to believe you and Malthus.<br /><br />As they say in Crooklyn. Get the f... out of here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86904023000969160242009-12-04T06:14:55.257-05:002009-12-04T06:14:55.257-05:00Wow. The anonymice are just as *beep!* here as els...Wow. The anonymice are just as *beep!* here as elsewhere! There must be a globally linked genetic family involved.<br /><br />Peak Oil. Ummm... if you don't understand that a finite resource exploited at an exponential rate WILL reach a peak in production and WILL eventually be gone (for all intents and purposes), you're flippin' brainless.<br /><br />The issue is one of when. Crude oil production has been flat for five years now. During that time prices have been as much as 7 times what they were in the early 80's. Your typical economist would tell you that's impossible.<br /><br />But it ain't. Prices are still 3 to 4 times what they were in the early years of this century. Where, pray tell, is the additional production bringing the prices down?<br /><br />As for Malthus, many people don't understand a few basics, the most important of which was that Malthus wrote before the discovery and use of massive amounts of oil. <br /><br />The world is very much determined by thermodynamics. A hell of a lot more energy in a resource-rich environment? WTF would you **expect** to happen? A fall in population? For chrissakes, man! That's a recipe for a boom in population, and that is exactly what happened. Criticizing Malthus without factoring in oil is pure ignorance.<br /><br />If you want to know what Malthus would have written in modern days, read "Limits to Growth," then read "Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update." Not surprisingly, of their scenarios, one has tracked quite well what has happened.<br /><br />Seriously, what do you not get about yeast in a jar?<br /><br />Worse still, oil isn't the only thing we're using up. Fisheries, soil, uranium, rare earths...<br /><br />Wake up, anonymices. Your tails will not be the last things you lose if things don't change relatively quickly.<br /><br />Hint: If we accepted that every barrel of oil/tar sands hydrocarbons on Earth we can get our hands on, that resource would last a little over 40 years if today's US consumption level were global. If we accept the reality that of **recoverable** hydrocarbons there are several times less than that, it lasts about 7 years.<br /><br />There is no better example of Malthus and overshoot. Except maybe that fish stocks have fallen immensely. I believe 95% of large fish are gone.<br /><br />Do the math.ccpohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02608765517662755393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87933096563090431322009-12-03T06:35:55.238-05:002009-12-03T06:35:55.238-05:00the *opinions* of anonymous posters are at best, w...<i>the *opinions* of anonymous posters are at best, worthless, i.e.:/i</i><br /><br />Mashey let me remind you that the blog owner's real name isn't Eli Rabbet, dopey. lol.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13670377102420079152009-12-02T21:30:57.493-05:002009-12-02T21:30:57.493-05:00Halpern:
The reference to "peer review"...Halpern:<br /><br />The reference to "peer review" was a reference to Mashey's links, which I didn't open as I assumed they would be swill (I thought it was his usual modis of calls to authority).<br /><br />You're right, it wasn't peer reviewed nonsense, it was some useless site peddling peak oil and other peaks.<br /><br /><br />Eli:<br /><br />Instead of dismissing my earlier comments with a promise you too will place you hands firmly over your eyes, perhaps you shouldn't ignore them and offer a response.<br /><br />The real question for you, Eli is do you think mitigation will cost more than the anticipated damage on this figures I presented.<br /><br />You're always pretty quick with a pithy response so I'm more than a little surprised you're doing the Mashey eye covering routine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18530487349022341892009-12-02T21:08:19.957-05:002009-12-02T21:08:19.957-05:00Since Malthus and much of the derived work was pee...Since Malthus and much of the derived work was peer reviewed . . .<br /><br />plonkUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14141923572695179691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-43856431328857258072009-12-02T20:53:58.709-05:002009-12-02T20:53:58.709-05:00Mashey:
The only thing you need to disable is you...Mashey:<br /><br />The only thing you need to disable is you own computer. Turn the thing off, stop surrounding yourself with like-minded end-of-world left coasters and take up golf.<br /><br />You're now preaching Malthusian belief systems as peer reviewed crap. Get a life son.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10271408289772943982009-12-02T17:44:28.414-05:002009-12-02T17:44:28.414-05:00Generally kicking them between the legs works. Ot...Generally kicking them between the legs works. Other than that they tend to burn themselves out.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32557096924694921532009-12-02T17:26:13.546-05:002009-12-02T17:26:13.546-05:00Eli: once again, I pleadddd for somehow disabling ...Eli: once again, I pleadddd for somehow disabling Anonymous, or to repeat my old comment:<br /><br />"the *opinions* of anonymous posters are at best, worthless, i.e.:<br /><br />IUOUI: Ignore Unsupported Opinions of Unidentifiable IndividualsJohn Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42070776921927156892009-12-01T21:07:51.363-05:002009-12-01T21:07:51.363-05:00One other thing Mashey.
You're quite content ...One other thing Mashey.<br /><br />You're quite content to look at long term temp chart that shows warming over the past 100 odd years and extrapolate that into a significant linear progression out another 100 years.<br /><br />However apply the same logic of extrapolation for long term GDP projections and you peddle Malthus.<br /><br />Seriously man, you need to take a rest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-3905948431549173332009-12-01T20:51:47.357-05:002009-12-01T20:51:47.357-05:00And of course, human welfare is completely depende...<i>And of course, human welfare is completely dependent on having a viable environment.</i><br /><br />the precautionary principle works both ways, fella.<br /><br />You tell me we need to spend $600 trillion to mitigate over the next 91 years as a precaution, I'll equally turn around ask tell you to be cautious before we spend that kind of treasure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34685060470887446082009-12-01T20:48:35.953-05:002009-12-01T20:48:35.953-05:00The assumption of indefinite GDP growth...
I think...<i>The assumption of indefinite GDP growth...<br />I think is a bogus fantasy by economists who think there is no connection between economy and energy</i><br /><br /><br />Mashey, please shut up. You don't know what the hell you're talking about most times.. least about economics. <br /><br />Drag up a third rate carbon copy of Malthus as a voice of authority isn't going to scare me or any other reasonable person.<br /><br /><br />You're on almsot every freaking blog preaching this left-coast 'we're all doomed" crap and it's really annoying. Find a hobby like golf or something and stop talking yourself into the notion we're reaching the end of times.<br /><br />Malthus was wrong then and his disciples are wrong now. deal with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78689399613285121442009-12-01T17:20:49.689-05:002009-12-01T17:20:49.689-05:00The assumption of indefinite GDP growth...
I think...The assumption of indefinite GDP growth...<br />I think is a bogus fantasy by economists who think there is no connection between economy and energy.<br /><br />Ayres+Warr's models seem much more plausible to me, i.e., that in the usual neoclassical growth equations, the ~60% that is often labeled "Total Factor Productivity", is much better modeled by:<br />work = efficiency * energy used.<br /><br />See <a href="http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/abscom/ASPO2005_Ayres.pdf" rel="nofollow">Ayres, 2005</a>, look at last page.<br />Alternatively, look at <a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3949" rel="nofollow">Charlie Hall's Balloon Graph</a> and reflect on the fact that EROEI's are declining, because we've *found* the easy high-EROEI stuff. I used to help sell a lot of supercomputers to petroleum geoscientists, because by the 1990s it was getting much harder.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42543278562890363152009-12-01T13:02:45.388-05:002009-12-01T13:02:45.388-05:00Dear Anonymous,
And of course, human welfare is c...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />And of course, human welfare is completely dependent on having a viable environment.<br /><br />Which we won't have at a global temperature increase of 7 deg C.<br /><br />But that doesn't matter to me, because today in 2009, I have used your wonderful analysis to externalize the costs of my trash by throwing on someone else's lawn. Same thing we are doing with our CO2. Very sound financial advice!<br /><br />--Mike#22Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81308368346788096982009-12-01T13:01:45.322-05:002009-12-01T13:01:45.322-05:00Dear Anonymous,
And of course, human welfare is c...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />And of course, human welfare is completely dependent on having a viable environment.<br /><br />Which we won't have at a global temperature increase of 7 deg C.<br /><br />But that doesn't matter to me, because today in 2009, I have used your wonderful analysis to externalize the costs of my trash by throwing on someone else's lawn. Same thing we are doing with our CO2. Very sound financial advice!<br /><br />--Mike#22Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75318806548634081012009-12-01T11:28:08.419-05:002009-12-01T11:28:08.419-05:00Mike:
Sorry, but the rational discussions always ...Mike:<br /><br />Sorry, but the rational discussions always needs to go to human welfare which is paramount.<br /><br />Deal with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-56664598777013341862009-12-01T11:08:59.533-05:002009-12-01T11:08:59.533-05:00Dear Anonymous,
Great way to frame the issue. In...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />Great way to frame the issue. Instead of looking at CO2 as a global pollutant that will do massive damage to the oceans, coastlines, agriculture, forests, wetlands, rainforest, species (even humans), we can instead reduce the issue to one concept based on a few simple numbers.<br /><br />Mitigated GDP vs Unmitigated GDP.<br /><br />Based on your analysis, I have decided to cancel my trash pickup and instead just pile it up on my neighbor's property. Maybe I will just burn it. Recycling is just another expensive form of mitigation. Why mitigate?<br /><br />--Mike#22Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2663845940073832462009-12-01T09:06:29.145-05:002009-12-01T09:06:29.145-05:00Eli:
That you ‘re smart dude I have not doubt and...Eli:<br /><br />That you ‘re smart dude I have not doubt and I’ve read your blog for a long time gaining bits of important information from time to time. What pains me is figuring out the strong desire by you and others to mitigate AGW when on a GDP basis it’s not the most effective way to go forward. Help me out with this if you can.<br /><br />Global real GDP is around $65 trillion. Estimates about the costs of mitigation suggest we’ll be lopping off around 1% from the potential GDP growth trajectory. (Real global GDP growth has been accelerating at an exponential rate since the industrial revolution, slowly at first and then compounding began to take hold).<br /><br />Assume the annual growth rate of 3.5% per annum. I think the average will be a lot higher than that over the next century but lets go with that figure.<br /><br />Annual Global GDP by 2100 will therefore be ($65 trillion compounded @3.5%) around $1,487 trillion unmolested by mitigation.<br /><br />Stern whose work (which wasn’t peer reviewed and more than a few people have deemed to be based on faulty economic reasoning) suggested that if we don’t mitigate AGW damage will cause 20% loss in projected GDP by 2100. We assume that and unmolested, AGW impacted GDP will be ($1487 * 80%) $1,189 trillion. <br /><br />Stern tells us we need to buy insurance that will cost us 1% of the globe’s annual GDP to mitigate for AGW which means we lop 1% of the growth rate and molested GDP becomes ($65 trillion compounded @2.5%) $614 trillion.<br /><br />Unmolested GDP $1,487 trillion. We lose 20% and it becomes $1189 trillion<br /><br />Mitigated GDP is $614 trillion.<br /><br />Why mitigate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31779295762118941192009-12-01T08:35:24.956-05:002009-12-01T08:35:24.956-05:00Eli
"low cost" wasn't meant to sugg...Eli<br /><br />"low cost" wasn't meant to suggest going to the most deadbeat insurer and buying the product from them. It was meant to suggest that it's low, or rather insignificant cost in being able to afford it.<br /><br />Which economists are telling me there is significant risk? Nordhaus?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-57741207836529102182009-12-01T08:28:01.097-05:002009-12-01T08:28:01.097-05:00Buying low cost home insurance is not necessarily ...Buying low cost home insurance is not necessarily a smart thing. Not all the companies are there, or ready to pay off when the crunch comes, but yes, insurance is shared risk.<br /><br />Then again, you ain't qualified and the people who are are telling you that there is a significant risk, and the economists are telling you that the insurance is a good buy, and you are shopping for an opinion.<br /><br />Good luck but Eli suspects that you will find what you are looking for.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-53964142343842209622009-12-01T05:20:52.258-05:002009-12-01T05:20:52.258-05:00What a stupid analogy. Planes are checked and cros...What a stupid analogy. Planes are checked and crossed checked every-time they fly. I don't check them as I wouldn't have any way of knowing. However my ticket price is supposed to indirectly cover the cost of hiring experts.<br /><br />Your food example is incoherent nonsense.<br /><br />I buy home insurance because it's very low cost.<br /><br />AGW insurance may turn out to be fine, although it is not low cost. <br /><br />However I would like to see the data and the methods verified by qualified personnel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-63898599150756185162009-12-01T01:55:35.978-05:002009-12-01T01:55:35.978-05:00Re Anon @ 10:43
I'm sure you check the data f...Re Anon @ 10:43<br /><br />I'm sure you check the data for every plane before you fly, as well as the entire crew and every employee of the airline. After all, PLANES FALL FROM THE SKY, AND IT'S OFTEN (USUALLY?) HUMAN ERROR.<br /><br />I'm sure you test every food item you buy, every hand it was processed by, every machine it got near, every pasture it grew from, every truck it rode on... because, by god, SOMETIMES PEOPLE DIE FROM TAINTED FOOD, AND IT'S OFTEN HUMAN ERROR, AND EVEN INTENTIONAL.<br /><br />I'm certain you carry no insurance of any kind because the chance that your house will burn or you'll have an accident is far lower than the chance AGW is real. RIGHT?<br /><br />Silly rabbit, kicks are for druggies.ccpohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02608765517662755393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85140967373369536382009-12-01T01:43:23.600-05:002009-12-01T01:43:23.600-05:00last anon:
Are you insane? It's just not publ...last anon:<br /><br />Are you insane? It's just not public monies going to fund these activities but the entire world is about to embark on molesting the GDP growth trajectory by 1 to 2% per year for the next 100 of years.<br /><br />As I said, we need to verify the data and the methodology used.<br /><br />If there is any fraud and I'm not saying there is, but if there is any, then we should accommodate the fraudster next to Bernie's cell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38328192256041304842009-12-01T00:46:22.167-05:002009-12-01T00:46:22.167-05:006:29 anonymouse, what big hyperbole and logical fa...6:29 anonymouse, what big hyperbole and logical fallacies you have!<br /><br />A: Gets funded to find answers that pleases its masters.<br /><br />B: Gets funded to find answers that pleases its peepers.<br /><br />Which, little mouse, should the cat eat?<br /><br />A: Makeses papers that pleases its masters.<br /><br />B: Makeses papers that pleases its peepers.<br /><br />Which, little mouse, should the cat eat?<br /><br />A: Findses its papers in tatterses after peeped by others peepers.<br /><br />B: Findses its papers peeped by otherses' peepers in jurnalses.<br /><br />Which, little mouse, should the cat eat?<br /><br />A: Hases memos that tells of its uh-ohs, i.e. its lieses about the B mouseses' papers, published in papers and peeped by millions of peepers.<br /><br />B: Hases memos that tells of its workses and frustrationses with little mouses lying out their asseses, also peeped by millions of peepers because little mices went stealing their memoses.<br /><br />Tell me, little mouse, which should the cat eat?<br /><br />A: Seeses meltses and fireses and warmeses and gone glacierses and habitats' gone traces, but sayses its peepers sees only lieses and conspiracies.<br /><br />B: Seeses meltses and fireses and warmeses and gone glacierses and habitats' gone traces, and sayses OH, #$@^ses! and doeses more sciences.<br /><br />Tell me, little mouse, which should the cat eat?<br /><br />And verification, as it should, responds, "flities."ccpohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02608765517662755393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-25724374122907241902009-11-30T21:29:13.704-05:002009-11-30T21:29:13.704-05:00Bullshit Eli. Einstein's theories weren't ...Bullshit Eli. Einstein's theories weren't exactly tied to funding sources and fast forwarding the global economy to de-carbonization policies which has been happening naturally anyway since the advent of the industrial revolution and costing $568 trillion this century in both growth trajectory (and out right costs).<br /><br />In any event I like you because you're from Crooklyn and that alone negates every other negative about you if there were any. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40809823467673677932009-11-30T20:44:12.130-05:002009-11-30T20:44:12.130-05:00Anon, get thee to stoat where Wm lifted some stuff...Anon, get thee <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/talking_to_the_layfolk.php" rel="nofollow">to stoat</a> where Wm lifted some stuff from Slashdotto stoat, and you can read all about why you are a charming starling. <br /><br />"I work with this stuff. Every day. 40 (well more like 50-60) hours a week. It took years of study for me (and everyone else) just to get to the level where you can properly understand what it is, exactly, that I do. That's what being an expert at something entails. Now when I get into a dispute with someone, they typically have the same level of expertise. They know more or less everything I do. I know what they're saying, and they usually know what I'm saying.<br /><br />Now you bring into that situation some layperson with their religious reasons or ideological reasons or crank personality, who wants to dispute the results of my work. So they pore over it, and they simply don't understand it. (And ignorance breeds arrogance more often than humility, as Lincoln said) But they think they do. And then they formulate their criticism. Even if that criticism makes sense (often not), it's typically wrong at the most basic level. And that will practically always be the case - because there's virtually *nothing* in the way of criticism that a beginner would be able to think of that an expert hadn't thought about already. You're just not going to find a professor of physics having made a mistake of forgetting the first law of thermodynamics."<br /><br />This is about just about everything. Einstein was a trained physicist, Bozo was a clown. Don't be a starling.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.com