lee wrote on Nov 16^th, 2021 at 7:37pm:


Because it's the cheapest and fastest way to generate the base load electricity they need to lift their populations out of poverty.

That's why the rich world has to step up, if the rich world wants India and China to transition out of coal more quickly.
But the rich world are self-interested hypocrites, preferring to point fingers at others. 

Meanwhile  you are an AGW climate denier, so you can go back to sleep.....

Quote:


Like I said.....I give you permission to go back to sleep.....


Quote:


MMT has thousands of followers; Stephanie Kelton's book 'The Deficit Myth' reached the NYT best seller list. The New Keynesians still have the upper hand in academia and central banks, but that is changing. Like Feynman said: "the tyranny of experts"  is still dominating economics schools with their  obsolete,  classical-based dogma.

But use your own brain: Obviously central banks with an unlimited fiat currency-issuing capacity COULD be authorized to fund the transition, following the BIS declaration: "central banks might have to buy the fossil industry".   

http://www.rossgittins.com/2021/03/funding-budget-by-printing-money-is.html

Yes, Oz's own Ross Gittins, in a SMH article...and Alan Kohler:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mzmJexSbm4

The usual objections from the orthodox no-hopers - re inflation -  obviously do not apply, because the printed money is not being put into the pockets of consumers who might bid up prices, but is being used by government to purchase the existing fossil industry and other resources, to fund transition to renewables....for 'free' apart from opportunity costs. .


Quote:


As you know AGW is not my chief interest: anyone can find the names of  thousands of scientists who have signed the IPCC declaration.

My interest is clean air which is healthy to breathe, and in poverty eradication via free electricity. But your self-interested ideology  blinds you the processes required to achieve both.


(Btw How do I make those links live, again?}

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 10:19am:


That's right. Your stated position was to elevate them.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 10:19am:


But I am asking for your preferred scientist and the relevant paper.
.
thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 10:19am:


So you have lost the argument again. I do believe climate changes.. According to theory CO2 will cause some warming. So far there have been no increases demonstrated to be of human caused changes. So how much warming is the question. The atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 11:18am:



And yet you want to deny it to the people of Africa. Why is that.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 11:18am:


Ah yes. GIVE them the technology. But you keep saying China has the technology, quite apart from which they have shown a propensity to steal any copyrighted technology.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 11:18am:


Poor petal. So you can't provide a paper and your preferred scientist. That means you are talking from ignorance.

You lauded AOC for being a layperson who understood MMT. But you can't explain it yourself. Paraphrasing  - "Governments don't need money - just create it", "Thousands of economists" - You can't provide evidence of that.  Governments don't need taxes - because the unicorn farts will pay for it.

Nothing about paying Government workers. Just create more debt we don't have to pay down. So money has no value. So much BS i so many posts.

So really you are just ignorant and don't even realise it.

Edit: Global inflation hasn't been this high since 2008

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/02/economy/inflation-oecd/index.html.

Oh well I guess inflation cn be a problem.

"MMT proponents argue that governments can spend as necessary on all desirable causes – reducing unemployment, green energy, better healthcare and education – without worrying about paying for it with higher taxes or increased borrowing. Instead, they can pay using new money from their central bank. The only limit, according to this view, is if inflation starts to rise, in which case the solution is to increase taxes. "

https://thecorner.eu/news-the-world/world-economy/modern-monetary-theory-the-ris...

But you were saying there was no need for taxes.

Frank wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 12:01pm:



Quote:


Note the bolded.

Alan Kohler ... an economic illiterate?  Please don't look in a mirror,  it will shatter...

Quote:


And Philip Lowe is so concerned about inflation he is giving the bond vigilantes the middle finger....

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2021 at 5:06pm:



Have fun with that nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change:

"Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[4]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[5][6] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors."


So no future in that controversy, the scientists are refining their observations, as the ice-sheets on Greenland are melting at ever faster rates.

So lets look at MMT instead, which correctly describes economic reality, enabling better outcomes  for  "the dismal science"

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/mmt-overcoming-the-political-divide.569365/

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:



You were the one referred me to the IPCC and climate scientists. And now you don't want to know? thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:



Oh you mean like Cook et al 97.1% of 33.3%?

"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming"

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

They should have been done for statistical abuse..

Nope you meant Anderegg.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:


"Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

Take out the colon. BTW - still not learned to properly link?

Anderegg - "Then in 2010, William Anderegg and colleagues concluded that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support … [the view that] … anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature” over a recent but unspecified time period. (Emphasis in original.)

To make this extreme assertion, Anderegg et al. compiled a database of 908 climate researchers who published frequently on climate topics, and identified those who had “signed statements strongly dissenting from the views” of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The 97–98% figure is achieved by counting those who had not signed such statements."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/10/deep-sixing-another-useless-climate-myth/

So if you didn't strongly disagree, in writing, then you agreed.

The paper is at - https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/107/27/12107.full.pdf

You really do know nothing.
the BTW - 2% was a it piece by the same cartoonist John Cook with Nuccitelli.


thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:



You mean the one where you said that governments didn't need to raise taxes?

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 10:32pm:


Yes. No taxes.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 10:32pm:


And yet economists point to inflation as a key problem with MMT.

"Of course, there are many counterexamples in which these conditions have been associated with hyperinflation, such as Argentina in 1989, Russia at the breakup of the Soviet Union, and more recently Zimbabwe and Venezuela. But in all these cases there was an assortment of additional problems such as government corruption or instability, a history of defaults on government debt, and an inability to borrow in the country’s own currency. Thankfully, the UK does not suffer from these problems."

https://theconversation.com/modern-monetary-theory-the-rise-of-economists-who-sa...

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 10:32pm:


again - no taxes

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 10:32pm:


But how to do it with NO TAXES?

"The only limit, according to this view, is if inflation starts to rise, in which case the solution is to increase taxes. "

ibid

To increase taxes you need to be taxing in the first place.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 18^th, 2021 at 10:32pm:


That there is right funny. NO ONE really knows but MMT proponents are part of that NO ONE.

But tell us more on those climate scientists you believe and what they have said,

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 3:34pm:


So how many global deaths for people with NO access to fossil fuels.

thegreatdivide wrote on Nov 20^th, 2021 at 3:34pm:


"It examines a specific form of particulate matter called PM2.5 — basically, a mixture of microscopic droplets in the air like smoke and dirt, smaller than a single human hair, that’s released by things like cars. "

Oh dear. There has not been a single death reported as caused by PM2.5.

So it is a statistical "study".

"By Steve Milloy

Below is my testimony at today’s public meeting of EPA’s CASAC PM subpanel concerning EPA’s updated assessment of PM2.5 science. Not surprisingly, the EPA air pollution mafia declined my challenge to point out where I was wrong… because I’m not. Please support JunkScience.com!

Good afternoon. I am Steve Milloy. I publish JunkScience.com.

EPA’s assessment of the PM2.5 science is a case study in science fraud.

First, the PM epidemiology is not science — it’s just statistics and dishonest statistics at that.

Statistical associations by themselves are not science.

EPA admitted in federal court with me that the PM epidemiology alone is inadequate for determining causality.

That should be no surprise.

It’s basic epidemiology – not that the PM epidemiology is worth anything to start with.

In fact, the data used in the PM epidemiology are mostly garbage.

The exposure data are poorly guesstimated and often overwhelmed by other PM exposures, especially smoking, occupational exposures and indoor air.

PM health endpoints like mortality are common and multifactorial, and so are not plausibly studied via epidemiology.

It’s no wonder that EPA allows agency grantees to hide their data from public scrutiny.

Even so, all the PM epidemiology essentially reports zero correlations.

Honest epidemiologists know that epidemiology is only useful for studying high rates of rare disease – not low rates of common health endpoints like death.

And let’s not forget that EPA staff continues to essentially ignore all the PM epidemiology that expressly reports no association between PM and death  like the 2017 study by Young, Smith and Lopiano that considered every death, two million of them, that occurred in California between 2000-2012 and reported no association between PM and deaths.

Let’s consider at PM toxicology which should be able to shed light on whether there is any biological plausibility to the notion that PM kills.

There is no lab animal experiment that has produced deaths in animals – despite intense PM exposures.

There is no human clinical experiment that has produced health effects – let alone deaths – despite exposing elderly and sick people to intense PM.

None of this is surprising since there are no real-world examples where PM has killed anyone ever.

Yet EPA staff dishonestly assesses this body of literature as supporting its false assertion that PM causes death.

Please EPA, show us the body of someone who has been killed by PM. Just one, please. Aren’t you even curious yourselves? There are supposed to be 8 million deaths worldwide caused by PM2,5. And you can’t find a single body?

Studies show that smokers who quit by age 40 will have inhaled thousands of times more PM than nonsmokers – yet both groups have the same life expectancy.

PM levels in Chinese and Indian cities can be 100 or more times greater than US outdoor air – but there are no reports of actual deaths from inhaling Chinese or Indian air.

Historic incidents of deadly air pollution during the 20th century were caused by acidic gases concentrated in the air by weather phenomena.

They weren’t caused by PM2.5.

Coal miners and diesel workers have relatively large exposures to PM – but they have greater life expectancy than workers not occupationally exposed to PM.

And guess what, when PM levels are reduced, deaths don’t go down.

Yet, EPA staff ignores this real-world data, doubles down on the fraudulent and secret science and raves that PM2.5 is more dangerous than ever.

It’s a shameless con. And it’s getting worse.

EPA staff now claims that the cleaner air is, the more dangerous it is.

EPA staff claims that when it comes to cardiovascular mortality, the dose-response curve goes supralinear at low doses.

Of course that would mean that tightening the PM2.5 NAAQS would actually kill people.

There is not a single toxic substance known to science that operates on the principle that a little exposure is worse than a lot. Not a single one.

All the foregoing is indisputable. At least I have no seen anyone dispute it.

So how did all this fraud take hold in the first place?

Since 1996 – the first time CASAC told EPA that there is no evidence PM2.5 kills – EPA staff has funneled at least $600 million to university researchers willing to commit scientific fraud in order to invent and maintain the lie that PM kills.

More  at -

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/18/milloy-epas-assessment-of-pm2-5-is-scienc...

And as I have pointed out Terpenes, which are natural, are less than PM2.5. I guess we need to cut down all those damn Terpene emitting trees.

There has however now been one death due to Climate Change.