Home › The Lodge
Butner bait
Imma gonna drag these people out in the open kicking and screaming.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur
Replies
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".
I find the willingness to give it up frightening.
Seriously?
Good post. You always seem so measured and reasonable. This is a good example.
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
Thanks guys! It probably helps that I don't drink.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
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.
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
A lot of truth to that movie as we are certainly destroying the place.
Asking for the President.
Tom Malthus, great guy, doing great things, great things.
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.
Right because climate science is all a big money making pyramid scheme.
Maybe.... do science? Win people over by education rather than getting pissed by dissent?
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?
If 97% of economists agreed that cutting taxes created jobs, guess what we would be doing.
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?
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
Yeah. Hypocrisy and shame are horrible company PR.
Not to hijack my own thread, but I don't think this is a given. At all.
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.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/05/what-if-climate-scientists-are-guessing-wrong.html
Its just the way the youngs talk. Its a millennial idiom. An idiom for idiots.