Butner bait

sherbsherb Senior MemberPosts: 3,720 Senior Member
«1

Replies

  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »

    IMO, the author makes the mistake of assuming certainty is the necessary requirement for action. In a more rational view, the debate is about risks and costs. What will it cost civilization to lower the level of risk we face? Activist for climate change policy got caught up in an unwinnable debate when they began chirpping about how completely sure and certain the conclusion of humans changing the climate in a catastrophic manner was. Such an approach gets headlines but is difficult to defend. This made it easy for critics to point to the cracks in certainty and say "see we don't need to take any action, because its not certain after all".
  • WetdogWetdog Senior Member Posts: 5,149 Senior Member
    I am certain that when my gas gauge tells me that I am going to run out of gas in five miles, I will.
    I find the assault on free thought disturbing,
    I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
  • Shawn C.Shawn C. Senior Member Posts: 6,756 Senior Member
    Mr. New Columnist needs to lay off the thesaurus.
    traduces
    Censoriously

    Seriously?
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,720 Senior Member
    creekguy wrote: »
    IMO, the author makes the mistake of assuming certainty is the necessary requirement for action. In a more rational view, the debate is about risks and costs. What will it cost civilization to lower the level of risk we face? Activist for climate change policy got caught up in an unwinnable debate when they began chipping about how completely sure and certain the conclusion of humans changing the climate in a catastrophic manner was. Such an approach gets headlines but is difficult to defend. This made it easy for critics to point to the cracks in certainty and say "see we don't need to take any action, because its not certain after all".


    Good post. You always seem so measured and reasonable. This is a good example.
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,244 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Good post. You always seem so measured and reasonable. This is a good example.
    Co-signed. I don't prescribe to the doom and gloom crap but I do believe humans have some impact. We can work towards reducing impact but keep costs in mind as well.

    On the other hand I'm drunker than **** Brown so I really don't know what we're talking about. No NJ hh

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
  • creekguycreekguy Senior Member Posts: 3,905 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    Good post. You always seem so measured and reasonable. This is a good example.

    Thanks guys! It probably helps that I don't drink.
  • NZ IndicatorNZ Indicator Senior Member Posts: 9,993 Senior Member
    creekguy wrote: »
    IMO, the author makes the mistake of assuming certainty is the necessary requirement for action. In a more rational view, the debate is about risks and costs. What will it cost civilization to lower the level of risk we face? Activist for climate change policy got caught up in an unwinnable debate when they began chirpping about how completely sure and certain the conclusion of humans changing the climate in a catastrophic manner was. Such an approach gets headlines but is difficult to defend. This made it easy for critics to point to the cracks in certainty and say "see we don't need to take any action, because its not certain after all".
    What is the risk we face?

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,326 Senior Member
    creekguy wrote: »
    IMO, the author makes the mistake of assuming certainty is the necessary requirement for action. In a more rational view, the debate is about risks and costs. What will it cost civilization to lower the level of risk we face?

    Insurers put aside reserves to pay future claims. The amount of reserve set aside is defined as the expected present value of future claims payments less the expected present value of future premiums. Insurers can reliably estimate, over a huge block of business, what will be the death benefits they expect to pay over time and the premiums they will receive over that time period.

    In the same vein, the amount we should spend on global climate change is the expected present value of the cost of global warning. However, we don't know the expected present value of the cost of global climate change - what is the probability that the models are off in terms of both temperature change and the effect. If we don't know the expected present value of the cost, we'll never agree on how much it is necessary to spend. Just spending everything necessary as if it's a 100% certainty isn't the answer...as it may waste precious and needed resources.

    FWIW, my years in the brokerage business have taught me the lesson of the Galician Jew. When everybody agrees on something, it is almost always wrong.
  • BushartBushart Senior Member Posts: 2,608 Senior Member
    Well I once was of the opinion that climate change may lead to our undoing---and eventually it may be catastrophic

    But...I don't think we're gonna make it that far under current conditions

    Look at overpopulation---and that exponential growth talk we already had---how are we gonna feed and find water for these #'s

    Look at the island of garbage and plastic in our oceans

    Look at the colour of the air in Bejing

    Trump has cut back funding on the great lakes epa wise---21% of the earth's fresh water---and supply to millions of people

    Try not to pay attention to the conflicts worldwide

    These are just a sampling of why this climate change debate might be moot
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 2,946 Senior Member
    There was a movie many years ago where some alien culture came to the conclusion that man was an infectious virus destroying the planet and polluting the universe. So they decided to destroy mankind by causing all kinds of natural disasters, Mother natures revenge. It ended with two scientists following the alien into the portal as mankind was wiped out.
    A lot of truth to that movie as we are certainly destroying the place.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie just look at the flowers.
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,326 Senior Member
    Thomas Malthus stopped by to remind us we're running out of oil.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,815 Senior Member
    Who's this Malthus guy? Is he supposed to be a smart cookie? Did he win by a landslide?

    Asking for the President.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,720 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    Who's this Malthus guy?

    Tom Malthus, great guy, doing great things, great things.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,720 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »

    FWIW, my years in the brokerage business have taught me the lesson of the Galician Jew. When everybody agrees on something, it is almost always wrong.

    The left's collective freakout over this op-ed is insane. All Stephens does is make the rather banal observation that we don't know as much as we think we do. He doesn't even bother to challenge the climate modeling.

    But this subject is practically religion with the Times' readership, rather than the usual back-and-forth over what might be an acceptable policy outcome. And religion will not tolerate apostasy.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,591 Senior Member
    Well the right's acceptable policy outcome is the dismantling of the EPA and removing any discussion of Climate Change from any official publication. So maybe we need to avoid giving them any ammunition to say the science is not settle.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,244 Senior Member
    sherb wrote: »
    The left's collective freakout over this op-ed is insane. All Stephens does is make the rather banal observation that we don't know as much as we think we do. He doesn't even bother to challenge the climate modeling.

    But this subject is practically religion with the Times' readership, rather than the usual back-and-forth over what might be an acceptable policy outcome. And religion will not tolerate apostasy.

    I read something last week about Bill Nye, the Fake Science Guy, and how he was **** about having to debate an actual scientist. The comment was along the lines of, debate and questioning science is the core of scientific research. That's not what is happening, as per usual with the left. If you disagree, you're literally ****. I don't question that climate is changing, and I don't even question that humans are having an impact. And last I checked, the EPA is changing emissions and a butt load of other stuff every single year.

    But it's not enough. "Scientists" want to hear you say you agree, and send in money, I guess. Sounds like a televangelist to me.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,591 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    I read something last week about Bill Nye, the Fake Science Guy, and how he was **** about having to debate an actual scientist. The comment was along the lines of, debate and questioning science is the core of scientific research. That's not what is happening, as per usual with the left. If you disagree, you're literally ****. I don't question that climate is changing, and I don't even question that humans are having an impact. And last I checked, the EPA is changing emissions and a butt load of other stuff every single year.

    But it's not enough. "Scientists" want to hear you say you agree, and send in money, I guess. Sounds like a televangelist to me.

    Right because climate science is all a big money making pyramid scheme.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,244 Senior Member
    Well the right's acceptable policy outcome is the dismantling of the EPA and removing any discussion of Climate Change from any official publication. So maybe we need to avoid giving them any ammunition to say the science is not settle.

    Maybe.... do science? Win people over by education rather than getting pissed by dissent?
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,244 Senior Member
    Right because climate science is all a big money making pyramid scheme.

    What suggestions are Nye and company presenting? Al Gore had his carbon offsets. Meanwhile he lived in one of the biggest CO2 emitting residences you could imagine. I remember GWB had solar panels, cisterns to collect runoff, etc.

    So, what do we do?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,591 Senior Member
    We do science. 97% of scientific publications agree that climate change is happening and man has an impact, we are now into yet another warmest decade in centuries, and yet because 3 percent of the those publications do not agree, we must close the EPA and allow unabated pollution.

    If 97% of economists agreed that cutting taxes created jobs, guess what we would be doing.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,244 Senior Member
    The EPA is going nowhere.

    I'll ask again, what do the 97% of scientists suggest we do? You know what other 97% agreed with the leadership at the time?
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,591 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    What suggestions are Nye and company presenting? Al Gore had his carbon offsets. Meanwhile he lived in one of the biggest CO2 emitting residences you could imagine. I remember GWB had solar panels, cisterns to collect runoff, etc.

    So, what do we do?

    You do get that Bill Nye and Al Gore are not the people doing the actual research right? Al Gore fixed his house.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/23/al_gore_my_house_runs_on_100_percent_renewable_energy_i_do_walk_the_talk_there_is_still_hope.html
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • BuffcoBuffco Senior Member Posts: 10,244 Senior Member
    You do get that Bill Nye and Al Gore are not the people doing the actual research right? Al Gore fixed his house.

    Yeah. Hypocrisy and shame are horrible company PR.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,591 Senior Member
    He bought a 200 year old house, it takes time to turn that around. In either case it has nothing to do with science.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,720 Senior Member

    If 97% of economists agreed that cutting taxes created jobs, guess what we would be doing.

    Not to hijack my own thread, but I don't think this is a given. At all.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,591 Senior Member
    Really, a much smaller percentage agree and what are we doing and why are we doing it?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,720 Senior Member
    Really, a much smaller percentage agree and what are we doing and why are we doing it?

    I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. But I'd venture a guess that 97% of economists do agree that cutting taxes would create jobs, all other things being equal. But all other things aren't equal, and cutting taxes (or raising them) requires the buy-in of powerful entrenched constituencies before it can be done. The question is only partially empirical. Pick an issue, any issue, where 97% of experts agree on a desired outcome, and I promise you that solving that issue requires politics.
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,720 Senior Member
  • StevenSteven Senior Member Posts: 3,326 Senior Member
    Unless you're ****, can anybody literally be ****?
  • sherbsherb Senior Member Posts: 3,720 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Unless you're ****, can anybody literally be ****?

    Its just the way the youngs talk. Its a millennial idiom. An idiom for idiots. :)

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.