- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The mass freakout over Bret Stephen's climate change article on NYT
Posted on 5/3/17 at 3:25 am to bonhoeffer45
Posted on 5/3/17 at 3:25 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Helps when you aren't forced to fully internalize the actual costs you produce.
Still parroting rubbish I see. You have no clue how much those companies have internalized those costs. You are clueless on the costs of scrubber technology, its effectiveness, and the costs of ongoing research to improve it. Your thinking is 30 years out of date on that side of the spectrum and you are woefully undereducated when it comes to the applied sciences here concerning "green" energy production. You are the type that's fooled into funding solar sidewalks and roads and you are unfortunately too common.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 3:34 am to Clames
quote:
Still parroting rubbish I see. You have no clue how much those companies have internalized those costs
Feel free to enlighten me wise guy!
Last I checked most of these companies have shareholders and shareholders are not keen on reducing profits simply because they want to be overly altruistic(unless there is a "goodwill" benefit) and internalize costs they produce but aren't currently being forced to. In fact CEO's have been sued by shareholders for far less.
quote:
Your thinking is 30 years out of date on that side of the spectrum and you are woefully undereducated when it comes to the applied sciences here concerning "green" energy production. You are the type that's fooled into funding solar sidewalks and roads and you are unfortunately too common.
I'm the type that made it through Micro and Macro econ 101 and passed the test that dealt with various types of market failures and distortions. Seems I am the only one in this conversation to at least get that far.
There is nothing "out of date" about recognizing when a marketplace has failed to address external costs. Then pointing out how that failure distorts the market and the price of goods.
I'm someone that supports functioning economic markets, not sure what your schtick is.
This post was edited on 5/3/17 at 3:38 am
Posted on 5/3/17 at 3:57 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Last I checked most of these companies have shareholders and shareholders are not keen on reducing profits simply because they want to be overly altruistic(unless there is a "goodwill" benefit) and internalize costs they produce but aren't currently being forced to. In fact CEO's have been sued by shareholders for far less.
You've never checked at all, just making assumptions from you own prejudices.
quote:
I'm the type that made it through Micro and Macro econ 101 and passed the test that dealt with various types of market failures and distortions. Seems I am the only one in this conversation to at least get that far.
Hardly, and even the guy that graduated at the bottom of the class in med school is still called "doctor" by the way.
quote:
There is nothing "out of date" about recognizing when a marketplace has failed to address external costs. Then pointing out how that failure distorts the market and the price of goods.
It's out of date because you are making garbage assumptions that don't hold up to the reality of today. You think a few classes means anything? You are just repeating some shiny new (to you) concepts and terminology and trying to fit them to a subject you barely have a room temp IQ on. I'm someone who passed somewhat more involved classes in thermodynamics, that's my shtick...
Posted on 5/3/17 at 4:16 am to bonhoeffer45
quote:
Is it possible that the real results will be outside that range? Yes, and the consensus acknowledges that as well.
Actually the consensus doesn't. You see, even the absolute best case predictions peddled by your consensus is still several times higher than what has actually occurred in the last nearly 40 years alone and those best case estimates are way lower than their median predictions. This all goes back to flawed models, flawed data analysis fed into those models, and the fact that current raw computational power is not even close to what it needs to be to make even reliable short-term trend predictions. Your consensus recently released a paper that showed the modeled trends are showing warming that is almost double what is actually being observed. This is the point you fail to understand here, you are asking for actions to be taken based on predictions made by those who are staking the continued flow millions of dollars of research funding on pushing trends predicted by computer models that are nowhere close to reality...
Posted on 5/3/17 at 5:22 am to aminhamenina014
quote:
Like, you could say the existence of gravity is uncertain and "a matter of probabilities". That doesn't mean engineers and physicists should proceed as if it might not exist.
Pretty bad analogy.
Never once in the existence of the universe has there been an instance where the 'theory' about gravity has been wrong.
You only have to go back 40 years to see the 'climate change' theories predicting global cooling to be our future.
In the long history of the earth, we have had myriads of ice ages - followed by global warming to melt the ice. We are presently still in the recovery stages of the last ice age - it takes a warming climate to melt the ice.
To attribute sinister effects to the activities of human beings is an exercise in immature thinking. It's kind of like pissing in the ocean - if you look at the immediate effects, yeah the water got a little warmer and the sea level rose a tad - momentarily.
And why did the meme go from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" all of a sudden?? Doesn't climate change offer the admission of the possibility the climate may change to a lower temperature??
Or was the change in meme done for POLITICAL reasons?? to disguise the appearance of inconvenient facts popping up in the data???
If the science was really settled on the climate getting ever-warmer, the meme of "global warming" would have been a far better way to convey the immediacy of the crisis. Why did you science non-deniers muddle the message???
Posted on 5/3/17 at 5:30 am to aminhamenina014
quote:But from your defensive, accusatory posture, you read with no comprehension. Mind closed.
I did read the op-ed,
Posted on 5/3/17 at 7:20 am to aminhamenina014
You must not have read it. He's not a denialist.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 7:34 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
As a climate change skeptic myself, his argument about polls being wrong in the election is kind of lame
Posted on 5/3/17 at 7:38 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
With nothing else to put their faith in, the average atheist-environmentalist is always at risk of taking a religious approach to science. The only difference between them and a religious fanatic is they think they have an objective, tangible basis for devoiding themselves of even a shred of skepticism.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 7:48 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
There's three separate reasons I think
(1) The article isn't that strong. It makes a gaseous, hand-wavey argument about uncertainty that essentially amounts to "people can be wrong about things," but also absolves the science itself. Since any decent climate paper is gonna have error bars and uncertainty ranges he confines his criticism to nameless "advocates" (Greenpeace types and Al Gore, one assumes). But "outcomes are uncertain" and "lots of laypeople get things wrong" don't get you much of anywhere, since uncertainty cuts two ways.
(2) Anyone familiar with Stephens' oeuvre at the WSJ knows he's being disingenuous. He had no problem attacking the science there, and often with the very certainty he decries in the "advocates." He flatly misstated some facts in the op-ed (e.g., confusing the global anomaly and NH anomaly). The sudden shift from "FAKE SCIENCE!" to "well, there's uncertainty" is baldly tactical and when you try to play to your audience too obviously it comes off as condescending.
(3) Stephens was putatively hired to bring ideological diversity to the NYT op-ed section. But NYT already had two Beltway NeverTrumps in Douthat and Brooks. So he doesn't actually add the value that they say he does and reinforces the idea that the "acceptable" MSM political spectrum runs from Hillary Clinton on the left to Marco Rubio on the right. Both Sanders and Trump style populists have a legitimate beef here.
(1) The article isn't that strong. It makes a gaseous, hand-wavey argument about uncertainty that essentially amounts to "people can be wrong about things," but also absolves the science itself. Since any decent climate paper is gonna have error bars and uncertainty ranges he confines his criticism to nameless "advocates" (Greenpeace types and Al Gore, one assumes). But "outcomes are uncertain" and "lots of laypeople get things wrong" don't get you much of anywhere, since uncertainty cuts two ways.
(2) Anyone familiar with Stephens' oeuvre at the WSJ knows he's being disingenuous. He had no problem attacking the science there, and often with the very certainty he decries in the "advocates." He flatly misstated some facts in the op-ed (e.g., confusing the global anomaly and NH anomaly). The sudden shift from "FAKE SCIENCE!" to "well, there's uncertainty" is baldly tactical and when you try to play to your audience too obviously it comes off as condescending.
(3) Stephens was putatively hired to bring ideological diversity to the NYT op-ed section. But NYT already had two Beltway NeverTrumps in Douthat and Brooks. So he doesn't actually add the value that they say he does and reinforces the idea that the "acceptable" MSM political spectrum runs from Hillary Clinton on the left to Marco Rubio on the right. Both Sanders and Trump style populists have a legitimate beef here.
This post was edited on 5/3/17 at 8:01 am
Posted on 5/3/17 at 8:16 am to bonhoeffer45
Out of all those articles trumpeting global warming, how many include predictions and warnings of events like catastrophic ice melts, a big sea level rise, and a plethora of hurricane hitting the United States?
Shouldn't all the missed predictions and alarming forecasts that did not play out be in a third stack?
Shouldn't all the missed predictions and alarming forecasts that did not play out be in a third stack?
Posted on 5/3/17 at 8:37 am to aminhamenina014
quote:
Like, you could say the existence of gravity is uncertain and "a matter of probabilities". That doesn't mean engineers and physicists should proceed as if it might not exist.
This just fricking retarded. As en engineer who routinely commissions research in to new areas of discovery, I can absolutely tell you that the change in global climate over the last couple hundred years is not well understood. The potential impacts are at best estimated with an unacceptable level of precision (best we can do at the moment). Lastly the causal link between any change and man's activities is tenuous at best.
Simply stated:
1) we do not understand what is going on yet
2) our tools to model the phenomenon lack the precision required to allow us to draw exact conclusions
3) causality has been assigned based on human emotion and political agenda.
That is all.
This post was edited on 5/3/17 at 8:42 am
Posted on 5/3/17 at 8:45 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
The left just gets nuttier each and every day.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 8:47 am to MMauler
quote:
If there was any doubt that this SCAM is the left's cult/religion, this should remove all doubt.
And just like a cult, you can NEVER question the religion of true believers/Kool-aid drinkers.
You did a good job interchanging cult and religion enough times not to piss off the religious of the board here, but your last sentence could have said "And just like a religion, you can NEVER question the cult of true believers/kool-aid drinkers"
Posted on 5/3/17 at 8:48 am to Iosh
Well he wasn't writing for a scientific journal to be peer-reviewed, it was simply an opinion article in a national newspaper.
Posted on 5/3/17 at 8:50 am to CamdenTiger
quote:boom
Most people just know there's nothing they can do about it. So, they don't GAShite. Yell, and scream all you want, but changing you habits( entire life) for a possible one degree change over the next hundred years, just not convincing enough...
Posted on 5/3/17 at 8:51 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Just for a moment, if any of the pen-pocket-protector-types can, forget about the science and look at the actual behavior of those at the forefront of this debate:
So we got Obama, exhibit #1 among the Climate Change AGW crowd -former leader of global super power, smartest-best-person-ever-to-have-existed according to some folk's mythologies. And what's he up to these days?
Last check, he and the wife were signing $65MM book deals, jet-setting around the world on private jets and yachts to hang with the regular types at ultra exclusive luxury resorts based mainly in tropical island paradises. (Guessing the carbon for that kind of stuff might lead to a so-called hotfoot)
Oh, and he's also charging $400K for 45 minute speeches on 'pertinent' topics (do ya think climate issues might be addressed in any of such speeches, ever?)
So, putting aside his burning a hole in the universe with all the carbon necessary to globe trot and be accommodated 'in style', what about all that money? What's he need it for, anyway?
Is he going to give it away to fund the solution that the Climate Change AGW crowd claims is required to save our planet? And, if he did, would however many millions he contributed even amount to a drop in the bucket against such an overwhelming problem? I mean, we're basically doomed to destruction via climate change in about 25 years -according to some of the (ever-changing) estimates thrown about, right?
And speaking of eminent doom, let's be generous and say he creates a foundation to save the planet and gives away a majority of his wealth. Do ya think that maybe, just maybe, just maybe, Obama is going to set up a little, itty-bitty bit of that dough for his posterity (Michelle, Malia, Shasha)? And how much you figure that might be? 5,10,20 million? More?
So here's the behavior question for all you geniuses pulling on your slide rulers (if you even know what those are or how to use one...): why would Obama burn up the atmosphere combusting jet fuel, or create a Sisyphean charity model that logically could't make a dent in such an 'enormous' global problem, or -and this is really the point- create an economic and generational safety net for his posterity, if he truly believed the whole world is going to hell post haste and within the lifetime of current generations -including his daughters????
Feel free to bring on "hope" and "synergy" but be sure you 'splain why any of those rationalizations accrue benefits specifically and exclusively to his line, if the problem threatens survival of the entire human species.
Do his actions indicate that he is really a true believer? And if he's not -former leader of the free world, had/has access to more data than imaginable, smartest-best-guy-who-can-also-shoot-hoops-etc-etc-ad nauseam-, why should anyone be?
So we got Obama, exhibit #1 among the Climate Change AGW crowd -former leader of global super power, smartest-best-person-ever-to-have-existed according to some folk's mythologies. And what's he up to these days?
Last check, he and the wife were signing $65MM book deals, jet-setting around the world on private jets and yachts to hang with the regular types at ultra exclusive luxury resorts based mainly in tropical island paradises. (Guessing the carbon for that kind of stuff might lead to a so-called hotfoot)
Oh, and he's also charging $400K for 45 minute speeches on 'pertinent' topics (do ya think climate issues might be addressed in any of such speeches, ever?)
So, putting aside his burning a hole in the universe with all the carbon necessary to globe trot and be accommodated 'in style', what about all that money? What's he need it for, anyway?
Is he going to give it away to fund the solution that the Climate Change AGW crowd claims is required to save our planet? And, if he did, would however many millions he contributed even amount to a drop in the bucket against such an overwhelming problem? I mean, we're basically doomed to destruction via climate change in about 25 years -according to some of the (ever-changing) estimates thrown about, right?
And speaking of eminent doom, let's be generous and say he creates a foundation to save the planet and gives away a majority of his wealth. Do ya think that maybe, just maybe, just maybe, Obama is going to set up a little, itty-bitty bit of that dough for his posterity (Michelle, Malia, Shasha)? And how much you figure that might be? 5,10,20 million? More?
So here's the behavior question for all you geniuses pulling on your slide rulers (if you even know what those are or how to use one...): why would Obama burn up the atmosphere combusting jet fuel, or create a Sisyphean charity model that logically could't make a dent in such an 'enormous' global problem, or -and this is really the point- create an economic and generational safety net for his posterity, if he truly believed the whole world is going to hell post haste and within the lifetime of current generations -including his daughters????
Feel free to bring on "hope" and "synergy" but be sure you 'splain why any of those rationalizations accrue benefits specifically and exclusively to his line, if the problem threatens survival of the entire human species.
Do his actions indicate that he is really a true believer? And if he's not -former leader of the free world, had/has access to more data than imaginable, smartest-best-guy-who-can-also-shoot-hoops-etc-etc-ad nauseam-, why should anyone be?
Posted on 5/3/17 at 8:56 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
Well for certain, NASA says that the Antarctic is NOT melting. It's not contributing to the sea level, in fact it's taking away from it. It's growing
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:11 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:Without doubt he's screwed. It's a nice piece, Thanks for posting.
Dare I say Mr. Stephens, a noted anti-trump columnist, is a heretic in their eyes?
Posted on 5/3/17 at 9:46 am to Damone
quote:Even by those standards it's weak. You don't need to be a scientist to understand that "climate change is uncertain and most conclusions are probabilities" implies not one but two fat tails of possible outcomes. You also don't need to be one to understand that "well the science is fine, my problem is with the activists" is just tarted-up tone policing, where someone attacks the manner in which arguments are presented to avoid addressing the argument itself. "Some advocates of X go too far and insult anti-X people" is true of probably every position on every issue in the world.
Well he wasn't writing for a scientific journal to be peer-reviewed, it was simply an opinion article in a national newspaper.
This post was edited on 5/3/17 at 9:52 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News