« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6

Author Topic: Rant - math literacy  (Read 665 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #60 on: April 30, 2019, 07:25:01 pm »
Quote from: ?Impact on April 30, 2019, 07:01:41 pm
If economic models are based on artificial premises, then who gives a ****.
Like I said, you don't care about numbers or science or economics or what is practical. You only care about pushing your ideology on people who do care about such things. Whether you like or not  the real world runs on money and every decision to spend money must be subject to a cost benefit analysis. You can argue that cost benefit analyses are inherently political but all that means is the decision on what to do about climate is political and there are no "believers" or "deniers". Just people with different priorities.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 07:28:17 pm by TimG »
Logged

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #61 on: April 30, 2019, 07:28:11 pm »
Quote from: TimG on April 30, 2019, 07:25:01 pm
Like I said, you don't care about numbers or science or economics are what is practical. You only care about pushing your ideology on people who do care about such things. Whether you like or not  the real world runs on money and every decision to spend money must be subject to a cost benefit analysis. You can argue that cost benefit analyses are inherently political but all that means is the decision on what to do about climate is political and there are no "believers" or "deniers". Just people with different priorities.

I care about the real world, and science is the real world. Just because economists rely on accounting does not suddenly make me not care about math.
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #62 on: April 30, 2019, 07:29:07 pm »
Quote from: ?Impact on April 30, 2019, 07:28:11 pm
I care about the real world, and science is the real world. Just because economists rely on accounting does not suddenly make me not care about math.
Proof again that left wing voters are numerically challenged. Hint: "science" is process not a religion. Science does not tell us what policies to adopt. Science simply provides input into the policy process.  The policy has to care about politics and economics because money and popular consent are required to implement any policy.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 07:38:31 pm by TimG »
Logged

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #63 on: April 30, 2019, 07:37:38 pm »
Quote from: TimG on April 30, 2019, 07:29:07 pm
Proof again that left wing voters are numerically challenged. Hint: "science" is process not a religion. Science does not tell us what policies to adopt. Science simply provides input into the policy process.

I would give you another "dumb" sticker, but I don't want you to have another tantrum.

Science tells us how the real world works, and allows us to predict the consequences of our actions. The policies we adopt is a different issue. If you want to jump out of an airplane, science will tell you what will happen to you. It is up to you to decide what to do.
Logged
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #64 on: April 30, 2019, 07:47:48 pm »
Quote from: ?Impact on April 30, 2019, 07:37:38 pm
Science tells us how the real world works, and allows us to predict the consequences of our actions. The policies we adopt is a different issue. If you want to jump out of an airplane, science will tell you what will happen to you. It is up to you to decide what to do.
You displaying a lot of ignorance on what science is. Not all science is equal. Not all scientific knowledge is equally certain. What used to be taken to "truths" turn out to be wrong. It is possible to look at different science and assess the certainty associated with the field in question. With gravity there is absolutely no doubt. With a lot medical science there is a lot of uncertainty but double blind studies allow us to test hypotheses. With climate science the basic theory is as solid a gravity but when it comes to determining the actual effects in the real world climate science is woefully lacking and completely dependent on economic models which you acknowledge are inherently political.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 07:49:38 pm by TimG »
Logged

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #65 on: April 30, 2019, 07:51:18 pm »
Quote from: TimG on April 30, 2019, 07:47:48 pm
What used to be taken to "truths" turn out to be wrong.

That is what science is all about. It is search for knowledge, and part of that is deciding that while Newton was very smart about his falling apple, he really missed out on some important things. Just because he is wrong however, doesn't mean you need to throw out the baby with the bath water. Newton still got us to the moon about 60 years after Einstein showed us that he was wrong.
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #66 on: April 30, 2019, 08:02:02 pm »
Quote from: ?Impact on April 30, 2019, 07:51:18 pm
That is what science is all about. It is search for knowledge, and part of that is deciding that while Newton was very smart about his falling apple, he really missed out on some important things. Just because he is wrong however, doesn't mean you need to throw out the baby with the bath water. Newton still got us to the moon about 60 years after Einstein showed us that he was wrong.
Who is throwing the baby out with the bathwater? As I said before: the science is certain enough to justify actions to reduce CO2 if and when they are cost effective. My beef is with dumb policies like CO2 reduction targets that have zero chance of being met, accounting scams like carbon trading or blocking the development of new base-load electricity supply. Sensible CO2 reduction is a process that will take 100 years or more. Artificial deadlines spouted by alarmists are counter productive.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2019, 08:04:18 pm by TimG »
Logged

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12531
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #67 on: April 30, 2019, 08:40:46 pm »
Can we move this conversation forward a bit.  To be honest you may be shocked to learn I am very open to Tim's assessment of this situation.

POP quiz: what does the IPCC estimate Climate Change will cost as a % of GDP ?
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #68 on: April 30, 2019, 09:26:52 pm »
Quote from: MH on April 30, 2019, 08:40:46 pm
POP quiz: what does the IPCC estimate Climate Change will cost as a % of GDP ?
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/30/1609244114

Quote
The present study presents updated estimates based on a revised DICE model (DICE-2016R). The study estimates that the SCC is $31 per ton of CO2 in 2010 US$ for the current period (2015). This study will be an important step in developing the next generation of estimates of the SCC in the United States and other countries.
IOW, the future costs of carbon are more than captured by Trudeau's current carbon tax. Any further resources spent on mitigation would exceed the cost of future harms according to that model.

However, the model I reference is in the peer review literature and was developed by a Nobel prize winner:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/nordhaus/facts/
Logged

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #69 on: April 30, 2019, 09:38:41 pm »
Quote from: TimG on April 30, 2019, 09:26:52 pm
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/01/30/1609244114
IOW, the future costs of carbon are more than captured by Trudeau's current carbon tax. Any further resources spent on mitigation would exceed the cost of future harms according to that model.

However, the model I reference is in the peer review literature and was developed by a Nobel prize winner:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2018/nordhaus/facts/

Essentially a bunch of academic blather going in circles and ending up nowhere. I'll take the verdicts of most climate scientists. 
Logged

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12531
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #70 on: May 01, 2019, 05:58:15 am »
Omni has a point - I think in the past Tim you had a hard % of GDP that you posted, ie. the costs of doing 'nothing'.
Logged

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #71 on: May 01, 2019, 08:21:48 am »
Quote from: MH on May 01, 2019, 05:58:15 am
Omni has a point - I think in the past Tim you had a hard % of GDP that you posted, ie. the costs of doing 'nothing'.
You specially asked for information on what the IPCC said and I gave you an example of the academic studies that the IPCC uses to make whatever headline claims they make. If you want op-eds you will find claims that GDP would grow 400% by 2100 without warming but it will only grow by 385% with warming except these numbers are often stated in a misleading way by saying it would reduce GDP by 10-20% which omits the fact that people in 2100 will be much much richer than folks today no matter what happens. These claims also compare apples to oranges between the business-as-usual and a no-warming-no-mitigation-cost scenario which will never occur. We only really have a choice between killing the economy today with aggressive CO2 reduction measures or living with the consequences whatever they may be. Given the fact that the future economic impacts are really just wild guesses the only rational approach is a reduce when cost effective, ignore the doom mongers and focus on adaptation.   

That said, the SCC is a useful tool for assessing mitigation measures. i.e. if someone claims a wind farm will reduce CO2 then calculate the cost per tonne of CO2 reduced. If it is greater than the SCC over the lifetime of the project then project makes no sense and should be shelved.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 09:02:29 am by TimG »
Logged

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8830
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #72 on: May 01, 2019, 10:40:42 am »
Quote from: TimG on April 30, 2019, 05:15:10 pm
In this thread the argument is about economic models which are the basis for any discussion on what to do about the claimed problem. As Impact was trying to argue economic models are never purely scientific exercises and the politics of the modeler matters a lot.

as an example... you put forward the Nordhaus model. If you don't accept the Nordhaus IAM (and the related... and projected SCC) do you have a preferred alternate {IAM} based model that better fits/suits your position, notably your position against mitigating CO2 emissions?

additionally, as you provided it, what do you interpret as the "Nordhaus politics" that have influenced the creation of the respective DICE/RICE models... and any politics associated with your (I expect, I presume) preferred alternative IAM.
Logged

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #73 on: May 01, 2019, 04:24:17 pm »
Quote from: TimG on April 30, 2019, 08:02:02 pm
Sensible CO2 reduction is a process that will take 100 years or more.

Where do you get that from. History has proven time and time and time again that change comes about very rapidly. I cannot tell you what the tipping point will be, but holding down one side of the teeter tooter to prevent it from happening is counter productive.
Logged
Agree Agree x 2 Disagree Disagree x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Rant - math literacy
« Reply #74 on: May 01, 2019, 04:56:29 pm »
Quote from: ?Impact on May 01, 2019, 04:24:17 pm
History has proven time and time and time again that change comes about very rapidly.
Nonsense. Historically speaking "rapidly" is over the course of thousands of years or more. The idea that we are near some catastrophic tipping point and there is something we can do to stop it over the course of a few years is delusional BS. The climate system does not operate on the scale of human lifetimes and if catastrophe occurs it will happen no matter what we do.

Ironically, the narrative you want to peddle only provides more support for the argument that we should not hobble the economy with misguided efforts to decarbonize because we will need access to cheap energy to ensure we can afford to adapt rapidly.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6
« previous next »