/sci/ - Science & Math

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/bill-gates-endorses-washington-states-carbon-fee-ballot-measure/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2013/03/09/bill-gates-still-believes-in-a-carbon-tax/#2a0b06967c6f

https://www.technocracy.news/category/carbon-currency/page/4/?print=pdf-search
>Bill Gates: Carbon Tax NeededFor Zero Carbon Emissions by2050

>>10708944
>>10708948
>>10708959
>autistic political articles are more realiable than hearing it from his lips in a video from his personal youtube channel

Yeah, this one is a climate alarmist. The low IQ is always telling.

It's always odd to see people blabbing about how disassembling the economy is the only solution to climate change, wonder if there's some weird communist angle to people pushing the idea

>>10708985
>direct quotes aren't real
wow it's almost like he thinks we need both regulation and innovation.

>>10708994
>a carbon tax will disassemble the economy even though it's worked fine in every country that has implemented one.

>>10708885
He never even mentions venture capital in the video. You know what helps innovation a lot? When the technology you're trying to replace is made more expensive.

>>10708994
I find it odd that deniers claim to be protecting the economy when unmitigated global warming is far more harmful to the economy than carbon taxes.

>>10708985
>calling someone a climate alarmist while posting a video of bill gates saying we need to reach 0 emissions by 2050
I don't understand how you thought this was a good idea

>>10709007
It is implicit, innovation and deployment need funding.

>>10709010
>no one has even denied climate change in this thread
>regardless, the simple mind of the climate alarmist immediately jumps to the boogeyman when confused.

Observing the modern descendants of the neanderthal is always amusing.

>alarmist
>the climate always changes, but it's not man made
>a prediction some retard made 5 years ago is absolute proof science isn't real
>a usage tax to discourage use is communism even though that makes no sense
>models I don't understand don't work and that proves measurement evidence false
>even if it is true it's not a big deal
>even if it is true genociding Asia is the only thing that will work
>even if it is true [insert speculative technology] is what will really fix it

sure signs of a denialtard pretending to be a reasonable person

>>10709021
>It is implicit, innovation and deployment need funding.
So funding from the government is not funding?

>>10709021
But you do deny that a carbon tax would help companies innovating alternatives to carbon emitting technologies, correct?

We already established bill gates supports a carbon tax therefore this entire thread is pointless.

>just tax everyone so they have to use solar panels
what happens if this isn't enough

>>10709061
If he actually believe that then why isn’t he matching the lobbying of the Koch’s? I mean, ever heard of put your money where your mouth is? He is rich beyond belief too.

I know for sure that if I was approached by some autistic journalist and was asked I would also just say the NPC approved opinion of the day to get him off of me, while then turning to support my actual beliefs by making a video and funding startups.

>>10709068
Enough for what? An optimal carbon tax is by definition enough to mitigate global warming optimally.

>>10709074
how high of a tax would it have to be?

>>10709058
All I know is that enacting such a tax before the alternative technology exists is completely retarded and only someone who has only ever used economy textbooks to shove them up their rectum for anal pleasure would think of such an idea.

>>10709069
>lobbying the trump administration for a carbon tax
This might be the dumbest thing you've said so far

>>10709084
>he thinks people lobby the white house
So you also have no idea how politics work. Can’t say I’m surprised.

>>10709081
It would change according to economic behavior: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DICE_model

>>10709083
>before the alternative technology exists
it already exists

>>10709087
>he thinks the White House isn't lobbied
>he doesn't know the President has veto power

>>10709107
You don’t lobby the president in the traditional sense of the word, you retard. You either funded his campaign or you didn’t. If you didn’t then that’s it until the next campaign, presidents are not like congressmen who chase funds because presidents already have at least 5 billionaires backing them.

And Bill Gates was alive during 2016 as far as we know.

>>10709098
Damn so Bill Gates made a video asking for innovation when it is already here. Is he retarded? Maybe you should leave him a comment.

>>10709097
The fed can barely keep the economy afloat with near 0% interest rates for 10+ years, throwing this model in which basically staggers the economy in times of prosperity would do nothing. If that's the best there is to offer a carbon tax is just a small band aid not a solution.

>>10709121
Bill gates didn't say there were no alternative technologies to the ones we currently use.

>>10709146
If there are viable alternatives then the innovation is already here. Link it to him in the comments so he can start funding them, hurry!

>>10709122
>The fed can barely keep the economy afloat
Yeah it's hard when you only have one knob to fiddle with and congress won't do anything but give the already rich massive tax breaks and won't close loopholes.

>>10709152
>we should give the FED more power

I’m starting to like this. It’s climate change right? Maybe this isn’t such a bad idea... let’s see what we can do. I’m honestly ashamed I didn’t think of this myself. This is the perfect excuse!

>>10709152
A tax increase right now would guarantee another 2008 style recession. The economy is way more complex then le blumpf, 30 year treasury bonds are sub 1%.

>>10709117
that's why I said administration you fucking retard, and campaign donations aren't lobbying either you utter fucking idiot

>>10708885
>krantz
trumptards

>>10709122
>something something something Fed therefore carbon tax doesn't work
Wow you're a fucking idiot.

>>10709163
>A tax increase right now would guarantee another 2008 style recession.
No it wouldn't. The recession was caused by deregulation of the housing market and shit for brain bankers making the worst investments possible and then draping a tarp over them and selling them as good.

>>10708994
>It's always odd to see people blabbing about how disassembling the economy is the only solution to climate change, wonder if there's some weird communist angle to people pushing the idea
Zizek seems to thing that doing nothing right now is the utopian thinking of our time. This seems to relate to the pervasive thought of our time, which is techno-optimism despite the fact that we see more and more today that technology is being used in all sorts of dehumanizing manners and unworthy pusuits such as augmenting authoritarian surveillance apparatuses or directing valuable time and manpower towards creating highly-personalized advertisements

>>10708885
Not really surprised that The Consumers think that the solution to the problems caused by consumerism is more consumption and more Consumers. Funny that.

>>10708885
>"we need innovation going out there and finding inventors across all these different areas and understanding their energy R&D activities and making sure they have a path from their laboratory to scaling up to very large numbers"

Yeah that definitely sounds like the same as saying "climate alarmists are retarded". Are you also going to ignore the fact that Bill Gates has endorsed tons of government regulations for curbing emissions?

>>10708944
>>10708948
>>10708959

>>10709266
Notice how all those posts have replies. You climate alarmists sure are retarded.

>>10709272
So is the argument here that the articles are all false and they're just making up the fact that Bill Gates actually supports those bills?

Because if so, it's really weird how a billionaire with his own media network hasn't gone out and said "yeah these articles are totally false"

>>10709280
No, it's a simple case of putting your money where your mouth is. Gates' money is all on my side, with 0 money going towards any kind of lobbying for these kinds of taxes.

You know what, I agree with Gates. In an ideal fairy tale world where actions did not have consequences, I would also want a carbon tax to fund the fairy energy that will power our magic wands. But no, I'm not putting any money towards that, thank you very much. Instead let's do actual science and solve this problem the way every problem has been solved since the dawn of time: being smart.

>>10708885
Bill Gates isn’t a climate scientist, and has published no peer-reviewed papers on the topic.


Who cares?

>>10709292
>No, it's a simple case of putting your money where your mouth is. Gates' money is all on my side, with 0 money going towards any kind of lobbying for these kinds of taxes.

I think he's just ethically opposed to the idea of abusing your wealth to influence politics. Your theory here is that because Bill Gates doesn't lobby for carbon tax, it means he doesn't /really/ believe in it.

Well, by that logic, he doesn't believe in anything because he has essentially no record of lobbying.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/lobby.php?id=D000031958

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/General-Information/What-We-Do-Not-Fund
>Examples of areas the foundation does not fund:
>Political campaigns and legislative lobbying efforts

>>10709305
So you proved that Gates doesn't like political autism and is more interested in funding real science. So... you agree with me? What's the deal.

>>10709308
Because if Bill Gates believed that venture capital is the only way to address climate change, he would not have widely endorsed government regulations and a carbon tax.

The only argument you have against this point is the fact that he didn't lobby for it - while ignoring the fact that Gates lobbies for nothing.

>>10708885
Bill Gates is a virtue signaling political, and a con artist.
If he really wanted to help the environment he would pay off billions of dollars worth of student loans so that bloated bankers couldn't use the interest payments they've been counting on to continue their Earth destroying activities (i.e. recreation for the rich).

It's these rich parasites who are responsible for most of the emissions

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam

>>10709312
>he would not have widely endorsed government regulations and a carbon tax.

I also endorse government regulations and a carbon tax.
...

See how that did nothing to actually change the world?

>>10709313
>If he really wanted to help the environment he would pay off billions of dollars worth of student loans so that bloated bankers couldn't use the interest payments they've been counting on to continue their Earth destroying activities (i.e. recreation for the rich).

Bad R.O.I philanthropically compared to eliminating polio, malaria, and NTDs. The guy who wrote the book on effective altruism knows more about how to spend his money than poorfag 4channers

>>10709292
The belief in fairy tale magic is actually technofuturists claiming speculative technology that doesn't exist is the solution, instead of technology that exists (renewables) and the simple strategy of not doing something you know is harmful. These are the knots denialtards twist themselves into.

>>10709314
>I also endorse government regulations and a carbon tax.

Ah okay, so he was lying. For what reason? Who knows!

Teach me your psychic telepathy skills

>>10709314
Great just do it 62,980,160 times and see how quickly the world changes

>>10709322
That wasn't my point though. The point is that you can say anything, but if you don't do anything to achieve it then you might as well have said nothing.

>>10709323
I also endorse government regulations and a carbon tax.
I also endorse government regulations and a carbon tax.
I also endorse government regulations and a carbon tax.
I also endorse government regulations and a carbon tax.
I also endorse government regulations and a carbon tax.
I also endorse government regulations and a carbon tax.

>>10709330
>That wasn't my point though. The point is that you can say anything, but if you don't do anything to achieve it then you might as well have said nothing.

Bill Gates participates in venture capital because he is extremely rich and not a lawmaker. It doesn't mean that he holds the opinion that it is the /only/ way to handle climate change - that's a complete jump in logic without any real justification for it.

>>10709316
absolutely revolting post
and great cope from a true Consumer

So we already established that bill gates supports a carbon tax, where does this thread have left to go?

>>10709314
>I also endorse government regulations and a carbon tax.
Ah good so you admit you were wrong this whole time.

/thread

>>10709337

PC Santa doesn't want to pay off your $150k loan on a philosophy degree. Sorry. I formally invite you to go pound sand.

>>10709336
But Bill Gates could do anything, not only venture capital. Sure, he chooses not to do political donations... but why? Whatever the reason, it means he is opposed to that kind of autism. He believes, as I do, that the market is right. If he did not hold that belief then he would not be above manipulating the market to introduce a parasitic tax.

>>10709339
A bunch of desperate libertarians thinking that a lack of lobbying history means that he's not /really/ into a carbon tax.

>>10709341
This is the intelligence of the average climate alarmist.

>>10709316
>Bad R.O.I philanthropically

You people are literally full of hilarious contradiction/hypocrisy

"sustainable development" is another of my favorites

bill gates is a dumbass who does retarded shit, what has he done for climate change? breed more niggers?

>>10709344
>Whatever the reason, it means he is opposed to that kind of autism.
By your own argument, since Bill Gates has done nothing to oppose a carbon tax, this means he doesn't oppose a carbon tax. So your argument contradicts itself.

>>10709344
Or maybe he actually believes in the concept of democracy and that money shouldn't be involved.

>>10709349
This is what the /pol/tard writes when he had no argument left. Thanks for admitting I was right this entire thread.

>>10709348
First, I'm not a libertarian. Second, my point is not that he does not believe that, I cannot read minds (but I'm sure you can). My point is that he is clearly putting money on my side of the argument, and neglecting your side of the argument. As far as the movements of his money say, Bill Gates does not give a shit about a carbon tax, but does care a lot about innovation. And at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is where you actually put things to work. You can say anything but that won't have an impact in this world.

I bet none of you even knew Bill Gates had said that before you googled that to post in my thread, you retards.

>>10709344
>Whatever the reason, it means he is opposed to that kind of autism.

It means he is opposed to lobbying. That is all it means.

>If he did not hold that belief then he would not be above manipulating the market to introduce a parasitic tax.

This is an extremely confusing and logically-defunct train of thought. Taking the inverse of what you're saying here, the only people who participate in lobbying are those that 'do not believe the market is right'. Which is clearly wrong because there are tons of hardcore capitalists who participate.

I've got to ask you - when you were typing out that convoluted-ass sentence, were you honestly confident that it was right?

>>10709358
I'm from WA so his support of the carbon tax is just common knowledge here

>>10709354
Actual retard tier argument.

>>10709355
If he believes in democracies he would be funding that.

>>10709357
You did not get the point of that first post. Stop pretending like you have any kind of knowledge. You are pretty much retarded. The point was that you can say anything, but if you don't put any actions towards that then it is meaningless.

>>10709358
>Second, my point is not that he does not believe that, I cannot read minds (but I'm sure you can).

See that's the beauty of it. Someone who doesn't lobby for anything (and explicitly states that they won't ever do it) is obviously opposed to lobbying.

What takes psychic telepathy is to argue that it's somehow also reflective of a lack of genuine support for a carbon tax.

>>10709365
You mean he would be paying taxes to a democratically elected government?

>>10709361
>It means he is opposed to lobbying. That is all it means.
Yes, he is opposed to lobbying. AKA "that type of autism".

>Which is clearly wrong because there are tons of hardcore capitalists who participate.

No one is perfect. Even past capitalists who benefitted from a free market can then turn and choose a more dictatorial approach to solving their problems. This is why I side with Gates, he may be very things but at least he is not a crook.

>>10709370
>You mean he would be paying taxes to a democratically elected government?

I mean he would be making grants to people like Junk Weegur who can't stop saying "GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS".

>>10709368
>What takes psychic telepathy is to argue that it's somehow also reflective of a lack of genuine support for a carbon tax.

But that is also not my point. My point is (and I'm saying this for the 10th time): You can say anything you want, what matters is what actions you put towards that.

I also believe many things that I am not particularly compelled to actually push and I am fully aware (as is Gates) that then my beliefs will not be fulfilled. I am fine with that, and so must he be.

>>10709371
>Yes, he is opposed to lobbying. AKA "that type of autism".

Cool - but again, just because he does not lobby for carbon tax does not mean that his (vocal, highly-publicized) support is actually just a lie. Believing in a carbon tax and also abstaining from lobbying are not mutually-exclusive ideologies. You can do one and not the other. Or both. But you haven't shown evidence that both apply.

>>10709376
>You can say anything you want, what matters is what actions you put towards that.

But Bill Gates isn't a member of the government, so the only actions he can hypothetically put forward are lobbying or activism. He does the latter but not the former, and that means he's somehow lying to everyone?

>>10709377
See >>10709376

What matters are actions, people. Clearly none of you are adults because if you were, you would see how empty these words are. They mean nothing. If you want to learn a lesson, make an oral contract with someone. See how that turns out.

>>10709376
>>10709377
>>10709381
holy fuck minutiae autists

>>10709381
In a democracy, everyone is a member of the government. Everyone can affect policy. Especially a billionaire. In fact, anyone with a brain knows that billionaires are above even the president when it comes to political power.

>>10709388
If that's minutiae, what's the bigger point he's trying to make? Bill Gates supports the carbon tax and that should be the end of discussion, but some people here think that the only way to 'truly' believe in something is to throw your money behind political action committees.

>>10709386
>having one of the richest and most famous people throw their support behind a new bill is completely useless and has no impact on anything

>>10709390
Good point, Bill (and many others) have put their vocal support towards the carbon tax that... oh... DOESN'T EXIST.

IMAGINE MY SHOCK

>>10709392
I'm hopping off the train here. Bill Gates believes that government regulation is needed to stop climate change. Venture capital helps but is not independently sufficient. These are the obvious and true conclusions from everything that's been posted in this thread, and any other interpretation of the facts is just desperate libertarian denial.

Why is what Bill Gates’ believes being argued about? Who gives a shit what he thinks?

>>10709342
>PC Santa doesn't want to pay off your $150k loan on a philosophy degree.
So PC Santa is ok with academia teaming up with banks to con young people into a life of slaving away making the products they need to live decadent high footprint lifestyles.

Market worshipers believe this is fair play as long as its not against the law. Market worshipers believe in absolutely asinine concepts like "philanthropic R.O.I."

>>10709399
But no one is forcing people to get those loans. Remember, if you allowed yourself to reach the age where you can sign legally binding contracts without first understanding politics and economics then that is your fault.

The only ground I'm willing to yield here is that if someone is too lazy then they should be able to request the government an extension of their underaged period so that they may reach 18 without having legally binding powers.

>>10709397
I'm not really following but I think someone is trying to prove that a market worshiper such as Bill Gates has humanity's best interest in mind lol

>>10709405
So you're fine with institutionalized con artistry. Not surprising from a market worshiper.

>>10709365
>Actual retard tier argument.
You realize you're taking about your own argument right?

>>10709412
It's not con artistry when there is an actual contract that tells you every single detail of the deal. Getting a student loan is nothing but an investment where you are betting that your earning potential will be much higher in the future and thus are willing to enter into debt now.

The person taking this position is (we assume) not retarded. They know the alternatives (scholarships, trades, saving) but are instead so confident they decide that debt will be negligible once they achieve their higher earning potential. If you made this bet and were wrong then that's on you, that's the market. Not every investment pays off, but you decided to take that risk.

>>10709365
>The point was that you can say anything, but if you don't put any actions towards that then it is meaningless.
He has put actions towards it by publicly supporting it. But thanks for admitting that your thread is meaningless.

>>10709420
See >>10709392

>>10709399
m8, academia has always been the playground of the bourgeoisie. a secondary education is the mark of the upper class and you aren't entitled to it.

>>10709417
It absolutely is a form of insitutionalized con artistry, and it is immensely costly to society, both in time wasted by the victim, and in debt slavery which feeds the potential consumerism (carbon footprint) of the con artist.

>>10709425
>You aren’t entitled to a living wage

>>10708885
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2019/06/06/billionaire-who-paid-off-morehouse-college-student-loan-debt-launches-internship-program/#47666bdcd3f4
This guy did more for humanity by severing the links between parasites and their hosts than Bill Gates could ever dream of, because Bill Gates has a primitive worldview.

>>10709423
>the premise of my thread has been BTFO but I still win because a carbon tax has not been implemented
/pol/tards everyone

>>10709429
you absolutely aren't

>>10709429
you can make a living wage without going to college. you just don't want to be a garbage man or other knuckle dragging tradie, you think you deserve to mingle with the american aristocracy.

>>10709470
>People with degrees are aristocrats

Absolutely delusional.

>>10709476
nope, the other way around. aristocrats have degrees, its why the rich still send their kids to college.

>>10709483
Oh well. They have to “mingle” with people that aren’t aristocrats now. Cry about it I guess

>>10709487
>Cry about it I guess
You pay the price of entry like the other rich kids then you get to be there. I'm not the one whinging about the price of secondary education.

>>10709483
They're still getting conned. They don't know that they will never be an aristocrat unless their parents are aristocrats (especially males), degree or not.

>>10709508
Nah, nouveau riche is a thing, especially in the US. Temporarily embarrased millionaires, etc.

>>10709429
>>10709459
Enslavement to society is the real problem. Establishing ownership of property and charging taxes for it is what forces participation in the capitalist economy in exchange for resources. Self-sufficiency or abstinence from participating in society is impossible without first "serving your time" to acquire enough money to purchase land and a home, then pay taxes on all of it until you die. Or you have to join one of those religious cults like the Amish or Mennonites who pool their money together for this very reason.

also fuck this gay thread not math or science

>>10708885
Blah blah if you have hammer, you only see nails blah blah