I think he said climate change is good for europe actually because it means more sunny days

How is he wrong about literally everything?

He is.

His notion is also backwards. There is a minimal amount of research that supports climate change skepticism, and a lot of what is published that backs skepticism are hoaxes or written by laymen, often using credentials from unrelated academic fields to give the impression they have a relevant doctorate or expertise.

Despite this, climate change skepticism has for the last 20 years gained significant coverage in media and its proponents have been getting enormous amounts of media attention relative to their minimal scientific contributions. Through this, the media has falsely generated the impression that climate change skepticism is a serious scientific take.

There has been a small correction of this in latter years, which probably irks a a lot of climate change deniers. Still, that correction is too little and too late. The past errors has allowed a lot of political cowardice to take hold, so now we're still struggling with decision paralysis.

there is a huge amount of science that doesn't support considering climate change an apocalyptic crisis, nor justifies exceptional changes in human societies because of it, especially in he global north, and that gets very little coverage.

nordhaus won a ****ing Nobel prize arguing +3 Celsius was better than doing more (because of the horrendous costs of doing more) to stay under that (we are at +1.2) and that was for the world, of course for countries that are colder than the global average (like all of Europe) it's even more obvious.

and not being a leftist I don't internalize costs paid by others, they literally don't matter to me, so I exclusively care about northern Italy which is where I live and where warming is a blessing.

you psychopaths on the left and all your media equate the idea that yes, massive fossil fuel use causes a slight warming, which is happening, to the fact that any amount of sacrifice from us on the rich world is justified to avoid it (lol wtf?) including Marxist nonsense like "equality" of the climate burden as if any non communist would give a **** about what happens to India china mexico or any other country, and as if they had the same "right" to pollute.

there never exist any duty to sacrifice for others in general, imagine for foreigners lol (if you aren't a leftist).

all this is hidden behind the "skepticism" nonsense as if it was about science. there is no science that compels me to sacrifice for indians. they can shut down all their coal plants to avoid climate change which damages them and I can keep living the same not giving a **** to them because simply I am not indian.

i am simply on the team that opposes everything you value, believe in, and consider worthy.

I will be worried the day a person like you agrees with me on values.

it objectively (per science) causes more days of mild weather (Ie human optimal within 18 and 25 Celsius) per year yes, and far less money spent on gas for heating, and we send that money to third world evil dictatorships.

More agricultural production as well. More days of available beaches per year. less fog, less winter deaths (which are massively more than heatwave deaths and will be even at +2 or +3 Celsius).

Global warming is MASSIVELY positive for Europe, like "cry every day for the blessing" kind of positive, like "we should emit more CO2 on purpose" level of positive.

it's not even close for us (and Canada, and Russia).

because they push climate apocalyptic scare which is even against IPCC claims constantly yes.

and because they push leftist ideology, like the idea that people living in Germany have ANY duty to care in any way for anyone living outside is pure leftism, controversial, and claiming it's obvious or eveb worse that it is "science" to give a **** about foreigners is already taking the wrong side of politics and tainting every else you say forever.

the day that any sort of left wing ideology starts to take hold that impacts liberals then they will be right beside you so you might want to hold off on worrying.

Do you care about humanity ? Or just some spot in a map to promote your false bias ?
There is only - earth with know of and 8 billions people solely living in Europe and North America would be disaster .

I’m not sure you have so much difficulty in appreciating that if somewhere else big crisis can be prevented , it could actually be plus EV for you ?

plus EV imo do not necessarily only means having a positive outcome .
Preventing very bad negative outcome should be considered + EV too .

Who knew Milton Friedman was a leftist Marxist? He argued polluters should be taxed based on how much they pollute.

that was Pigou which invented the concept and was really a leftist.

he was a pacifist extremist (imagine being a conscience objector against killing under all circumstances in WW1, can't get much more leftist than that) and generally exceptionally to the left of the median in his age.

he invented the whole externality concept which is just the crowbar for Marxists to justify unlimited state intervention.

I don't think Friedman was in favor of the west paying for potential pollution to the global south, but EVEN IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM THAT you have to count for everything before deciding if we have to pay them or viceversa.

everything we invented and they are using, they got a positive externality from us even if the patent was expired or the idea was never patentable right?

so do antibiotics, electricity and everything else. account for all the externalities that benefit every single country that DID NOT invent them but benefited from them, then please sure subtract global warming.

we pay only if the net is negative (it isn't).

or the game only works for negatives?

they should pay us significant percentages of their GDP in perpetuity because of the positive externalities of what we, and only we, developed that made life bearable on this planet. if anything.

“There’s always a case for the government, to some extent, when what two people do affects a third party,” it said. “There is a case, for example, for emission controls.”

"The best way to do it is to impose a tax on the amount of pollutants emitted by a car. And make it in the self-interest of the car manufacturers and of the consumers, to keep down the amount of pollution in that way."

yes and how and why do you think this would generalize out of the country?

and if it does, why aren't all positive externalities counted to offset any purported damage repayment?

Because Friednman was a global trade advocate.

What are Carbon Offsets?

Carbon offsets are typically created when companies or individuals finance projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions elsewhere. Projects to reduce carbon often fall into one of two categories: mechanical or natural. Reforestation and wetland restoration activities are examples of solutions that "naturally" collect carbon in the environment. Mechanical solutions include investments in new technology that result in higher efficiency or lower emissions, like renewable energy projects or direct carbon capture technologies.

Source: https://hbr.org/2023/12/what-every-l...carbon-credits

What I’m getting from this is that for 40+ years, conservatives were (are?) denying that man made climate change was real. By the way, 99% of climate papers said it was real. Now that we know it’s real beyond any even shadow of a doubt, you guys want to say “oh ok, it’s real, but it’s actually not that bad”.

So for the better part of 40 years you loony toons were denying it existed and now you’re suddenly the experts on how we should respond to it? And we’re the psychotic ones, right?

Nah I’m good. Until you all are groveling at our feet apologizing for saying that science that has been obvious since the 80’s is real, I don’t think you get any say on the matter.

Nordhaus has been saying since 1993 that climate change is real, but there’s a huge flaw in his models. He thinks that 87% of the economy is not effected by climate change because it’s not outside. That’s idiotic, and I don’t care if he won a nobel prize about it. Unless you want to defend his model for all I can tell you just want to trot him out as the one guy that agrees with you (not even a climate scientist btw).

edit: By the way, the guy you cited is literally famous for saying rich countries should voluntarily police emissions for the benefit of poor countries. Oh he must be some kind of lunatic marxist too, right? Give me a break, your post is just all kinds of triggered nonsense because you’re mad that your point doesn’t stand up to the tiniest bit of scrutiny.

Friedman wasn't an advocate for global pigouvian taxes , and no it's not obvious that a mechanism he advocated for domestically should generalize globally even if was pro free trade.


Friedman, as most non leftists, was rationally selfish, he advocated for stuff that he thought benefited him, his family, his friends, his relatives, up to his country.

Carbon offsets don't answer my question.

my question is why do you feel the west should pay the global south because of global warming, without accounting for all the blessings the west provided to the global south, like antibiotics, electricity and everything else we discovered or invented including capitalism itself?

why are you so keen to pinpoint purported negative externalities we should pay Forza and not the monstrous, historically unprecedented, positive externalities we created for every living human being?

the vast majority of the population of all countries is alive today EXCLUSIVELY because of western discoveries and inventions. and nothing else. all population growth in the last 150, years comes down to that. most people alive owe their literal life to us.

and you want us to pay because they have to live in a one Celsius warmer world? a warming that we caused to pursue those exceptional discoveries and inventions which benefit them every day?

I smell complete bad faith

I only answer for my claims not for other people claims.

global warming was never even supposed to be bad for Europe that's why your guys changed the wording to "climate change" when people living months under snow didn't react negatively to warming.

it still isn't bad even in IPCC models.

you keep changing the narrative to climate crisis or whatever, it doesn't change reality. a warmer Europe is a better Europe for residents, as it would have been obvious to everyone given that Europe is colder than the human optimal.

ye science that disagrees with your claims is crap, I get it. first it's "science is with me!!!!" then people cite science that actually is the literal opposite of your claims, and "that's not real science!!!!" and you wait for radical leftists publishing in radical journal and "that's real science!!!!"

btw climate scientists have absolutely nothing useful to say about the effect on human life of warming. that you don't understand that intuitively is part of the problem.

climate scientists don't even know how to write a model about human quality of life, it's completely outside of everything they study. they can only tell us how they think the climate will change.

how that translates to human quality of life has absolutely ZERO to do with climate science and it's insane you think you need climate scientist to assess the impact on human. life of climate warming.

note this is identical to listen to epidemiologist opinions on lockdowns.

their opinion is utter trash because they have no tools to assess tradeoffs other than for the specific pathogen spread, which is only a tiny part of the whole.

it's identical, you think climate acientists are qualified to tell you how much to sacrifice today to reduce warming by x, somebody must have convinced you of that crap but it lacks all logic, it's completely nonsensical.

it's like asking a car mechanic about urban traffic

Friedman was a staunch advocate for free and fair global trade. Claiming he only meant for one country (USA) to impose a pollution tax, which would create unfair pollution arbitrages across world markets is the opposite of free and fair global trade.

Friedman disagrees with you:

“There’s always a case for the government, to some extent, when what two people do affects a third party,” it said. “There is a case, for example, for emission controls.”


It's already accounted for by the fact that emerging economies are being asked to incur pollution-control costs that first-world countries did not have to pay when they built their economies. That represents trillions in value enjoyed by first-world nations. There's your offsets.

I am not asking third world countries anything and right-wing people aren't either so your answer is nonsense.

you guys are asking them stuff (which they completely disregard, and they make up fake numbers when they are needed to keep getting your cash) but not us at all.

I could care less about how much India or china emits in CO2