A commentary slams the "false optimism" around plans to holdclimate change to 2 degrees Celsius or less

Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2015 06:52:51 -0700 (PDT), wrote
this crap:

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 9:12:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

You should be in favour of this since it's an indirect tax and saves income
tax for the rich.

There should be no income tax on anyone.

Dittos


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

So are you going to put your money where your mouth is and repay all your
military salary which was funded from income tax?

On Tue, 19 May 2015 13:22:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Your brain is royally screwed up, peterson. If no one wants to buy a particular piece of art, then it has NO value, represents NO "wealth."

A simplistic economic viewpoint.

Star parties conducted by the
club in Colorado Springs educate thousands of people about astronomy
every year.

Few people among those thousands is, or ever will be, any better off materially because of the -tiny- bit of astro knowledge they might receive at a star party.

You have no way of knowing how knowledge like this impacts people. And
your restriction of the benefit to "better off materially" is again
simplistic.

Of course, you don't recognize that education as a form of
wealth.

Education constitutes wealth only if one can profit materially from it. Millions of perfectly intelligent young people owe thousands on student loans for educations that have not, and will not ever pay off for them.

You may never pay off an education and still place huge value on that
education. Your education may advance society, both materially and
non-materially, even if it never earns a dollar.

On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:57:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Owl Bore already heats his pool with methane and uses quite a bit more of it than almost -everyone- else uses.

It doesn't matter how much somebody uses, it matters that they use the
least amount possible while still maintaining their chosen lifestyle.

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 5:04:28 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2015 06:52:51 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote
this crap:

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 9:12:56 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

You should be in favour of this since it's an indirect tax and saves income
tax for the rich.

There should be no income tax on anyone.

Dittos


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

So are you going to put your money where your mouth is and repay all your
military salary which was funded from income tax?

Why would he do that? He was paid a salary that could have just as easily been funded by a consumption tax instead.

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 5:05:45 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2015 12:57:27 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Owl Bore already heats his pool with methane and uses quite a bit more of it than almost -everyone- else uses.

It doesn't matter how much somebody uses, it matters that they use the
least amount possible while still maintaining their chosen lifestyle.

If Owl Bore weren't such a flaming, hypocritical warmingista and if he were really concerned abut the environment then his "chosen lifestyle" would NOT include a swimming pool in the backyard of his twenty-room, energy sucking mansion. Nor would it include limos and private jets.

You and he are both hypocrites, your hypocrisy is just on a smaller scale.

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 5:04:25 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2015 13:22:23 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Your brain is royally screwed up, peterson. If no one wants to buy a particular piece of art, then it has NO value, represents NO "wealth."

A simplistic economic viewpoint.

A painting that doesn't sell has no monetary value, except perhaps as a substitute for other fuels.

Star parties conducted by the
club in Colorado Springs educate thousands of people about astronomy
every year.

Few people among those thousands is, or ever will be, any better off materially because of the -tiny- bit of astro knowledge they might receive at a star party.

You have no way of knowing how knowledge like this impacts people.

Another of your asinine statements.

And
your restriction of the benefit to "better off materially" is again
simplistic.

The world, by and large, doesn't actually care if someone can identify a few stars in the sky. Celestial navigation is obsolete, books on astronomy are becoming so and there are few positions available for astronomers.

Of course, you don't recognize that education as a form of
wealth.

Education constitutes wealth only if one can profit materially from it. Millions of perfectly intelligent young people owe thousands on student loans for educations that have not, and will not ever pay off for them.

You may never pay off an education and still place huge value on that
education. Your education may advance society, both materially and
non-materially, even if it never earns a dollar.

If the education doesn't improve the career prospects, and for the current generation that seems increasingly to be the case, then that education has no value and is not to be considered wealth and maybe even a waste.

On Tue, 19 May 2015 15:16:30 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

If the education doesn't improve the career prospects, and for the current generation that seems increasingly to be the case, then that education has no value and is not to be considered wealth and maybe even a waste.

What a sad worldview you have.

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 7:26:11 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2015 15:16:30 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

If the education doesn't improve the career prospects, and for the current generation that seems increasingly to be the case, then that education has no value and is not to be considered wealth and maybe even a waste.

What a sad worldview you have.

Not a sad view, just a realistic one:

http://www.census.gov/dataviz/visual...tem/stem-html/

On 5/19/15 3:16 PM, wrote:

If the education doesn't improve the career prospects[...], then that education has no value and is not to be considered wealth and maybe even a waste.

Worth repeating. Explains much.

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 11:14:12 PM UTC-4, lal_truckee wrote:
On 5/19/15 3:16 PM, wsnell01 wrote:

If the education doesn't improve the career prospects[...], then that education has no value and is not to be considered wealth and maybe even a waste.

Worth repeating. Explains much.

You quoted out of context.

Obviously you need some "education" :

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wealth

Both are primarily defined in monetary terms.

You, peterson and others have misused those words for so long that you have forgotten what they actually mean.

This, posted earlier, confirms what has been long known, or at least suspected, about education and the job market by many of the more observant:

http://www.census.gov/dataviz/visual...tem/stem-html/