Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Cold Weather Does Not Disprove Global Warming (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  That infuriates me also... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Knockbally, LookingUp, Calamity Jean

    The line that "CO2 is not a pollutant", or "We couldn't live without CO2."

    Is it so difficult to understand that things need to be in the right quantities in order to be good.   Maybe this reflects the equilibrium economics taught in most universities, which operates on the assumption that more consumption is always a good thing.  By that reasoning, eating three steaks for dinner must be three times better than just eating one.  

    I always use the counterexample of H2O.   Water is essential for life in the right quantities; deadly when there is too much of it.  

    •  Water is necessary for life so can't drown you. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean

      Warmth is necessary for life so can't burn you.
      Food is necessary for life so can't make you obese.

      Even if deniers accept that this particular CO2 argument is stupid and wrong rather than rejecting the analogs out of hand, they will either switch to other equally stupid and wrong arguments or will go back to their bogus argument a day later. The problem isn't with reasoning, it's with ideologically motivated belief and intellectual dishonesty.

    •  That isn't from equilibrium economics (0+ / 0-)

      which observes the phenomena of Diminishing Returns. You might be thinking of the supposed Pareto Optimum, which is defined as a state in which nobody can be made better off without making somebody else worse off. In a free and fully competitive market, there should be an equilibrium which is also a Pareto Optimum. But we have nothing like a free and competitive market, nothing like a true equilibrium, and nothing like a Pareto Optimum.

      However, it is an article of faith among Market Fundamentalists that we are always, necessarily, at a Pareto Optimum, and that they are the ones to be made worse off by any tax increase, regulation, labor law, or human rights legislation. They cannot grasp that allowing society to invest some of their earnings along with everybody else's can result in an increase in their earnings, along with everybody else's.

      Real equilibrium economics is not their kind of zero-sum game, since it allows for economic growth improving everybody's situation. As we had in the Eisenhower years, when the top tax bracket was over 90%, but we built roads, schools, and much more.

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Sun Jan 05, 2014 at 07:21:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dont think they've thought it through (0+ / 0-)

        I'm just supposing that a superficial exposure to consumption functions, etc. in Econ 101 gives people the idea that more consumption is always a good thing, since it increases "utility.  This in turn could lead to the idea that, if CO2 is good, then more of it must be better.  How else could anyone think something so patently ridiculous?  

    •  the dose makes the poison (or pollutant) (0+ / 0-)

      Many trace metals we could not live without (chromium and selenium, for example) are toxic and even lethal when they get beyond a certain level.  So, it is pretty stupid to project that, since a certain amount of CO2 is good, even more is better.  We need a little humidity in the air to thrive, but we drown if we try to breathe under water.   Humans have evolved to survive  within a very narrow band of temperatures, concentrations of various chemicals, etc.  Just because we need a certain amount of some compound, it does not follow that a super-abundance of it is that much better for us.  Though I admire Mae West ("too much of a good thing is wonderful!"), her philosophy does not apply to chemical concentrations in the environment and other factors...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site