A convenient truth - Steven Levitt - CDI 2011

[@raymondmurphy3845]

Steven levitt is a madman in the best way possible!

[@WaffleStaffel]

Very intriguing discussion. A couple things though, 18:17 makes the assumption that "Billionaire _Philanthropist_" is an accurate characterization. Has this ever proven to be a well founded assumption? 20:38 all available evidence shows the only apparent goal of AGW proponents *is* to suppress the economic development of various global powers in a way which strategically benefits only certain corporate/banking factions, not to mitigate pollution or remediate environmental damage, both corporate driven. It *all always* boils down to control, altruism has never once been a factor in the whole global warming campaign, only an appeal to human guilt.

[@JGooden762]

If his prediction about integrated child car seats is any indication, I'd say the salt-water clouds idea is pretty doomed...

[@AndrewNiccol]

what do you mean? prediction to child car seats?

[@mattjohnston2]

So long as it's an insurance policy, not the focus of a solution.

[@jssandler]

I just had an epiphany... we are using the wrong language to talk about "climate change". It's NOT climate change, what we are doing. It's *Atmospheric Carbonation". We are carbonating the atmosphere and the oceans. Warming is just one symptom. But also, the oceans acidify (like soda is acidic) and plants and vegetables become less nutritious to eat because they ripen more quickly in a carbon-rich atmosphere, so by extension, we become malnourished. There's a systemic change that is broader than just higher temperatures. Any prominent climate scientists reading this: it's time to use a different name: "Global Atmospheric Carbonation"

[@lancerd4934]

But carbonation is what most people understand to be the way you make drinks fizzy and bubbles are fun, people love bubbles. If anything, that makes it sound _more_ positive on an unconscious emotional level simply by association.

[@davidwynne2005]

Do the maths.. .0.03 to 0.04%

[@okninjas4898]

Would these salt clouds not lead to mass amounts of unproductive land?

[@shawnrobertdoyle5242]

The Oceans are massive, so plenty of time for the clouds to rain back down. Furthermore, we might even be able to use this tech to help irrigate currently unusable lands

[@robertjedwards2040]

Shawn Robert Doyle The clouds wouldn’t be salt water. Only H2O with a tiny nucleus of salt. Pure water.

[@glasslinger]

What kind of hokey poke chemistry is THAT??

[@rakooi]

If not in the perfect amount...assuming we know the perfect amount...we don't so better to stop the use of Fossil Fuels.

[@okam8662]

His MIT/Harvard degrees definitely didn't teach him basic fluid physics. At 13:12 he mentions the 10 mile high garden hose used to push liquid sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere using "swimming pool type" pumps. A typical pool pump operates at about 1atm pressure or 14-15 psi however in order to lift sulfur dioxide 52,800 ft (10 miles) into the atmosphere you would need a pump operating at 31,500 psi which is a completely different "animal" and has zero resemblance to any swimming pool pump.

[@jasonscott1594]

When did he ever mention liquid sulfur dioxide? Or that it was even his idea? Gaseous sulfur dioxide is only 0.2% as dense as liquid sulfur dioxide (at 1 atmosphere). So, around 62 psi using the same hose size you selected. A few pool pumps, around 15 psi each, in series sounds perfectly doable.

[@okam8662]

@@jasonscott1594 Because I'm not a trolling dumbass and did my research unlike you! content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1931993,00.html Are 'SuperFreakonomics' Authors Wrong on Global Warming ... content.time.com › time › health › article Oct 26, 2009 - The authors visit Nathan Myhrvold, the brilliant former chief technology officer of Microsoft and co-founder of Intellectual Ventures, a private think tank. Myhrvold and his staff have the idea to build a giant "garden hose to the sky" that would pump liquefied sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere

[@festol1]

Global warming isn't refeered to a single effect (warm), but a set of effects on natural climate regulation (one of which, that can be mesured, and is most evidente: the warm on glacial poles). He needs to go back to the drawing board on this matter.

[@zteen314]

global WARMING is not about getting warmer you say? of course there are other problems, like polution, but in effect the problem about global warming is about the temperature afecting everything in the ecosystem, of course he is not saying this is a miracle solution, but he has a point about the research that should be done in order to at least know if these alternate solutions make sense in a way

[@johnpulliam395]

It amazes me that an economist, and a bright one like Steven Levitt, fails to ask the key question. He gets to the idea of cooling the earth to offset warming ... but he never quantifies it by asking, "how much"? "What's the goal?" "What temperature are we shooting for?" "What's the Right Temperature for the Earth?" You'd think an economist would be among the first to try to quantify the problem. And this is the #1 shortcoming of the whole climate change movement. There's no goal, and without a goal, we can't possibly know what direction we should be heading. Maybe what's going to happen over the next 100 years is actually better than any other choice. Hmm. What if global warming is BETTER than global cooling? Or perhaps better even than the status quo? We don't know, because no one can answer the key question. What's the target temperature?

[@thomasbroleen4241]

Great comment not often heard this point of view.

[@markrkahn]

you've never heard of 350.org? - the goal of that is to lock atmospheric co2 below 350 ppm.

[@johnpulliam395]

J Thomas, not sure how figuring out the right temperature (whether warmer, cooler, or the same as [pick your year]) can be beside the point of any movement focused on the global mean temperature. If warmer than today is bad (as we're told), then how much warmer qualifies as "bad"? Will 2 degrees more doom us? Or 5 degrees? Should we be trying to go backward, to 5 degrees cooler than current? Seems that's kind of central to the whole debate over global warming and what we should try to do about it. You know, setting a goal. I could be wrong, though. Please explain how it's beside the point in reasonable terms?

[@johnpulliam395]

@@jgt_ So you believe that the correct goal for our climate control efforts should be the current global mean temperature minus 0.35 degrees Celsius. That this is the "right temperature". Is that correct?

[@johnpulliam395]

@@jgt_ I don't even know what sea-lioning is. Whatever it is, i am certainly not doing it, unless it simply means trading ideas and opinions. Okay, so you do believe the global mean temperature of the 1970s, about a third of a degree cooler than today, is the "right answer." Just one more question: Why? What makes that better than any of the alternatives? Thanks in advance! p.s. You got waylaid again into discussion of carbonation and CO2 levels, rather than temperatures and climate. Remember: CO2 is just one of many variables that help to guide our climate. It is, in and of itself, inconsequential within limits that we are nowhere near reaching, except as it may change the climate. In other words, CO2 is only a means to an end. Since we are discussing ends (goals) rather than means in this conversation, let's focus on temperature.

[@solstice2318]

Don't you just love it being part of the few thousands of people who ever watched such an important video exposed to the entire human race?

[@demontongue9893]

"mkay"

[@lancerd4934]

Maybe the reason nobody took them up on the "make more clouds" idea was that they thought about it for more than 15 seconds. The ocean isn't just water, it's full of life, and all of that life depends on the photosynthesis performed by plankton in order to exist. You decrease the amount of sunlight hitting the water by a significant margin, you reduce the amount of photosynthesis that occurs and collapse the global fishery, which will in turn kill millions of people through starvation. It's like saying the land absorbs more sunlight than water, so we'll just set up reflective shade cloths over most of the ground, and then being surprised when all the crops and pastures die. Not to mention that nobody knows what effects on climate changing the percentage of the earth that is covered in clouds would do. We could see increased cyclones, blizzards and flooding for all they know.

[@lancerd4934]

And while we're at it, _how are you going to have solar powered boats that make clouds everywhere they go????_

[@AethersPhil]

They are talking about 3-5% of the oceans surface, not all the oceans in the world. More clouds does mean more rain, however it has been proved that storms build and build over large areas of warm air. Cooling the air and water surface will stop storms growing as large as they are now. The less energy a storm has the less destructive it will be. The chapter he referred to in his book goes through a few other ideas they have for cooling the ocean surface.

[@glasslinger]

It's because this stupid shit has never studied satellite images of the earth! The earth is mostly covered with clouds all the time! Clear areas are the EXCEPTION, not the norm! DUH!

[@vanessaxiomaracallemamani9811]

Actually what is happening on earth :( . I think we´re watching the effects a decade after

[@davidwilkie9551]

"Many a true word spoken in jest"

[@r.b.l.5841]

economists are not scientists because economics is a belief system.

[@rok1475]

R. B.L. Nicolas Nassim Taleb wrote in his book “The Black Swan” “The difference between economists and astrologists is that economists have fancy formulas and graphs.” It is not possible to formulate an economic hypothesis then prove it with math and then validate it in a controlled experiment. Therefore economy is not real science.

[@r.b.l.5841]

@@rok1475 Agreed.

[@bikefarmtaiwan1800]

The key word in this presentation is "if".

[@MauriatOttolink]

Don't know who you are Levitt but you didn't kick up much dust with folks making comments here. Couldn't find ONE to back up your rubbish.

[@davidcamacho579]

To understand the reality, we should think like him

[@lancerd4934]

What, to save our beachfront condos from rising sea levels, we should blot out the sun and kill millions of the world's poorest people through the resulting global famines as crops fail and fisheries die due to lack of sunlight?

[@martindalycray3312]

He can speak.

[@michaelkelly2688]

Interesting thought process does this mean trumps brighter than I think. #not

[@stipcrane]

Steven's false premise is that the UN IPPC's concern is climate change. If a simple climate control solution was presented which did not tax and control humans it would be ignored, if not quashed. UN assessment report author, Ottmar Edenhofer, admitted in a speech it was not about climate but “about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.”

[@ShayGapBoy]

Capitalism has done a great job of redistributing wealth already. The question you should be asking is how do you generate wealth for the working class, so that they can spend more...generating more wealth.

[@rakooi]

You keep looking for a boogeyman but he is pulling your strings...making you a perfectly acceptable puppet! . Steevo, the massive redistribution of YOUR wealth is Ongoing! . The First SUBSIDIES to PROFITABLE Fossil Fuel Industrialists began in 1918 after a decade of generous contributions by the Fossils to POLITICIANS...both parties. 19 Years Ago, worldwide Subsidies and Supports to profitable Fossil Fuel Industries...totaled over 1% of the entire world's Gross Domestic Product. (( Trillions of $ )) August 2015, Paul Ryan gave a Lengthy Lamentation that by that year's End, the US would pass a milestone: OVER $1 Trillion in Supports, Subsidies, Free Infrastructure construction, and Maintenance, training wage supports,even foreign aid to reimburse the subsidies foreign nations need to pay our profitable industries, even sweetheart tax deals not offered to any other industry, etc. In 2016, worldwide Subsidies to the DEEP STATE Fossil Fuel Industrialists and their Bankers grossed OVER 6.5% of world GDP....many trillions of dollars! and they have you pointing at Green Alternatives to the Deep State Energy Monopoly Fossils and their Trillions in Cash Flow!! They are literally laughing all the way to their bankers !!!

[@leonschweiger4676]

Its not about cooling the earth tho its about not warming further

[@ZeroNumerous]

Cooling the Earth achieves the same goal as halting warming. Especially if it can be turned on and off more or less at will.

[@josiealiceblanton]

The idea of those dinghy things could catch fire if they let the Internet name them!

[@rakooi]

@@ZeroNumerous We KNOW what we have done to get here...WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO STOP! Cooling is, at best, grossly an estimate.

[@johnmullally8711]

Hey Chicken Little, how about making your data and models public.

[@mayankraj2294]

12:00

[@mettakind]

Economists inadvertently reducing Greenhouse gas output by damaging the ecomomy is a good example of the naivete of the simplistic approaches they can take to issues. The climate change issue is bigger than just the temperature of the Earth - greenhouse gases are also increasing the acidity of the ocean, for example. In Australia, in the 1930's, Cane Toads were introduced to prey on the native Cane Beetle which was causing problems for the sugar cane industry. It didn't work. Instead Cane Toads have become a massive environmental problem in Australia and had no effect on Cane Beetles. This is just to say that solutions that only see symptoms - such as those suggested in this talk - are potentially very dangerous. That's not to say they shouldn't be considered, but please, please, do not present these ideas in isolation from a more holistic understanding of what is really happening. It's dangerous.

[@Satchmoeddie]

Let us look at Germany and California who went head first into "renewable energy" which is an oxymoron. Both are having to BUY energy made with coal, or nuclear, and they need it during peak demand periods so they are paying SUPER PREMIUM prices for it. Then when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, and the electricity is generating, NO ONE WANTS THE SURPLUS! They cannot give it away. How about the Kyoto Treaty? Japan is now breaking their own treaty after the Fukushima incident, but no one seems to have ever mentioned that little factoid. The New Green Deal? That will destroy both the economy and the environment. There is huge push of "pseudo-science" to get grants to build wind farms. The return on investment is, less than zero. The return on invested energy is also less than zero. The Sanny Wind Gens are built with electricity made from burning coal, and their lifespan is such that they will not make the energy it took to build or install them. It's what we used to call "eye wash". (It looks good so the boss will think we accomplished something, and he will hopefully go away, and not bother us. )

[@thesheeplepeople1497]

You plant trees and stop cutting down the ones we got.

[@rakooi]

AND you know that is not going to happen...but you can Plant Trees...the Chinese have planted tens of millions of trees.

[@ReasonablySane]

This is kind of comical. He keeps talking about a problem that doesn't exist. He starts off just assuming there is a problem. The problem has been debunked. There is no problem. Well, at least that's not the problem. Truth be told we are in a CO2 drought right now. Would be a lot better off if we could somehow pump 1000 parts per million into our atmosphere.

[@ferocious20022002]

It

[@alecneuschaefer4172]

This is such a primitive view on climate change

[@AethersPhil]

Climate change can be explained in basic terms. The Earth is a closed system which is provided a (mostly) steady energy supply from the Sun. We’ve spent the last 100+ years changing the atmosphere so it holds on to more energy. That excess has to go somewhere so that’s why we are getting ever more powerful heat waves and storms. So, do we A: reduce the amount of energy added to this system. B: find a way to capture or negate the excess, or C: do nothing and hope the whole thing blows over?

[@arbitrarysequence]

@@AethersPhil Despite all the good efforts to do otherwise, I bet we go with C.

[@aeroearth]

Closet communist.

[@davidbagstad8964]

This idiots idea could actually bring on the next ice age. Economist should stick to the economy.