- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
I've been thinking about this article all day, and, you know what? I like the ideas well enough that I want to let the people in Washington who are making decisions on my behalf to think about these ideas as well. I am editing my original post with contact info for the government representatives that are pushing to spend more of my tax dollars, and yours, on what I believe to be worthless programs. If you like these ideas too, send a letter or an email to them and let them know.
Why would you let your tastes determine what you think is truth. I like the idea that I am the greatest person in the world, but I know the difference between what I want to think and what actually is. You are a finance guy. You aren't a trained scientist, or a climate specialist, or a student of any of the other disciplines that go into being able to impartially and scientifically weigh the evidence for global warming. Why are you so egotistical as to imagine that your opinion is worth something. You are climate know nothing. Climate change is serious business with potential disastrous consequences for the people of this planet if we wrongly interpret the threat. You want to twist politicians arms to do what you like without regard to the data that is being gathered on this subject and the preponderance of evidence so far in as evaluated by our best scientific minds. Your ignorance compounded by millions of other fools who judge matters by their tastes could kill me and the children of the future. Have some humility and keep your mind open and your huge mouth closed. You don't know shit about what is happening. You bring ignorance and polarization to a vital issue that our best scientists need to solve.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
True, I am no scientist.But I am intellectually, and to a certain extent emotionally for I have a family and a hope for the betterment of humanity, engaged on a wide variety of societal issues, including environmentalism, and have been since I was in my teens. I was part of the environmental, then called ecology, movement that swept the country around the time of Ralph Nader coming into national prominence with a spotlight on the control of air and water pollution and I have kept up with the discussion of the science through reviews of a wide variety of journals and the kind indulgence of numerous scientists and other specialists. My specialty for many years was technology investment in areas such as IT, biotech and, yes, even environmental science ventures. I've done recent work in national economic development and microfinance so I also know a bit about societal impact from those angles.
Money makes the world go round, my friend, and I want it to be used wisely as well as offer a good return to those who risk their capital to grow something wonderful. So they can do it all again. Tastes don't really come into it at all.
Let me assure you, as much as I would like intellectual certainty in this matter, I find there is no definitive science as to human factor climate change at this time and that makes any claim to a definitive solution highly suspect. It is too complex a model and the scientific jury is still out. You may disagree on this, many do.
Moving on to governmental policy, perhaps an argument map will provide some clarity as to specific logic/factual errors in the Obama administration's climate policy -
A Logic Challenge To Barack Obama's Climate Policy
Whether or not there is significant human climate impact has a corollary - can we do anything to modify climate change, particularly if the change is occurring due to impact factors beyond population, industrialization levels and resource usage? The further follow-on question is, even if we can, and that is truly a doubtful proposition, are the trillions of dollars (representing the labor and efforts of all people) that would be required for minimal impact, a fraction of a temperature degree of impact, the best use of that level of investment? Both Lomborg and Klaus and many others whose thoughtful and learned opinions you may disagree with, without examination, argue otherwise. I happen to see their point.
Do you recognize this quote from Lomborg's article? (Have you even read the article?)
This is not an issue that is being decided by some ivory tower scientists pronouncing a well thought out and perfected solution to the unwashed masses and holding the ear of learned and wise politicians as much as you might wish this to be the case. None of the major issues of our day - health care "reform," the "stimulus," the "bailout," the global warming "crisis" - are. These actual and proposed seismic shifts in our economy, with all of the attendant societal impacts, are being decided by the application of, and in furtherance of, raw power and influence in politics.
The Climate-Industrial Complex - also by Bjørn Lomborg
Have you heard much learned debate as legislative initiatives are passed without due consideration of even a few days or even the reading, much less comprehension, of legislation by voting members of the U.S. Congress? Of course not, this is a time for payoffs and paybacks and the myriad details are irrelevant except to those who will most be impacted, and impacted for years to come.
Other than having the slight weakness of enjoying a modicum of satisfaction in being somewhat of an influence leader in my little circle of friends and colleagues, I have no wish to engage in the destructive spotlight of running for and holding elective political office. I do, however, believe we still live in a representative democracy and thus as a citizen I have a right and even an obligation to express my views and personal interests to my elected representatives both directly and indirectly. If I don't, I have no one to blame but myself should they make decisions that have adverse effects.
Now, you yourself may not trust my judgment - you have no reason to based on a few posts I make here out of amusement - and you may prefer to rely on the judgment of others who hold some academic credential or another. That is your privilege and I wish you the best with whatever outcome transpires. I on the other hand, do care enough to be a bit more engaged, you don't mind if I exercise my rights do you?
I believe you are a smart guy, but being smart sucks if you are not ready to outgrow this manifest stage of cynicism and start making a worthwhile contribution to the debate going on in the real world and not just inside the cocoon of these forums.
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Copenhagen is one of the most pleasant cities in Europe! And the weekends start on Wednesdays in Nyhaven!
I would write to Lomborg and see if he is going to be teaching at the Copenhagen Business School the next couple of terms. I know he does classes but he may be on a book and speaking tour. You could also ask about interning with the Copenhagen Consensus Center, though they had their quadrennial session last year and that would have been the best time to work there.
If that doesn't work out, I suggest checking out European MBA exchange programs at INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France and Singapore, IMD in Lausanne, Switzerland, IE Business School in Madrid, Spain and Iese Business School in Barcelona, Spain. All are world class. CEIBS in Shanghai, China is getting a global rep should you want to eventually work there.
You would think he'd want to study under somebody who thought completely differently than he does so as to be intellectually challenged and not have any potential biases inforced.
Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Scientific consensus on global warming)
Link
This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.
Your reply was well written, cogent, and valid in many ways. Not exactly common that that happens here.
You used the term taste, first, I believe.
I remember, so many years ago, in a radio broadcast on the issues of arms control the issue being raised, we will lose jobs, yes lose jobs the purpose of which was to build weapons designed to kill billions of people. We gotta save jobs.
A compelling case can be made, I am certain, that it would cost too much money not to go extinct.
I subscribe to a school of thinkers who claim to be idiots since all the wise men chairs are occupied by fools, and one of my teachers was Mulla Nasrudin who used to raise cattle, among a number of other things.
One day one of his bulls stamped down the fence separating his property from his neighbors and his bull Al Gored one of the neighbors cows. He rushed to his neighbor's home and exclaimed. Your bull has broken the fence and gored one of my cows. I want compensation. The neighbor replied, but my dear Mulla, it was an act of God. I owe you nothing. Wait, said the Mulla, I got that wrong. It was my bull that gored your cow. Oh, said the neighbor, not that is an entirely different circumstance and you do owe money for the damage.
I have seen that taste is so often what we consider out self interest that I am totally immune to your charge of cynicism.
I like the line from some movie. You may be a one eyed Jack, Dad, but I seen the other side of your face.
I will look at your links later.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Scientific consensus on global warming)
Link
This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.
National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.
Your reply was well written, cogent, and valid in many ways. Not exactly common that that happens here.
You used the term taste, first, I believe.
I remember, so many years ago, in a radio broadcast on the issues of arms control the issue being raised, we will lose jobs, yes lose jobs the purpose of which was to build weapons designed to kill billions of people. We gotta save jobs.
A compelling case can be made, I am certain, that it would cost too much money not to go extinct.
I subscribe to a school of thinkers who claim to be idiots since all the wise men chairs are occupied by fools, and one of my teachers was Mulla Nasrudin who used to raise cattle, among a number of other things.
One day one of his bulls stamped down the fence separating his property from his neighbors and his bull Al Gored one of the neighbors cows. He rushed to his neighbor's home and exclaimed. Your bull has broken the fence and gored one of my cows. I want compensation. The neighbor replied, but my dear Mulla, it was an act of God. I owe you nothing. Wait, said the Mulla, I got that wrong. It was my bull that gored your cow. Oh, said the neighbor, not that is an entirely different circumstance and you do owe money for the damage.
I have seen that taste is so often what we consider out self interest that I am totally immune to your charge of cynicism.
I like the line from some movie. You may be a one eyed Jack, Dad, but I seen the other side of your face.
I will look at your links later.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
I guess you didn't read. "The fight over the science of warming is over, yes." Next time give it a try.
Fingolfin269
Lifer
- Feb 28, 2003
- 17,948
- 34
- 91
BS! We have been setting record lows in Tennessee this month. I'm all for global wamring (especially the cooling period it has caused!)
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
Personally i think one of the biggest problems global enverment change has is Al Gore. He comes off looking like the only reason he is doing it is to make a buck and pushes shit people have a hard time believing.
do i think we are changing the environment? hell yeah. do i think its also part of the natural cycle? yeah (granted we are speeding it up which is not good).
do i think we are changing the environment? hell yeah. do i think its also part of the natural cycle? yeah (granted we are speeding it up which is not good).
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Yeah, well, I've taken a lot of classes and and have a few degrees and haven't learned that much from most of them. Everyone has background and bias but not everyone who teaches has an intellect. Sometimes an inspiration is sparked, and that is the best quality of all in a teacher. He can do much, much worse than spending some time with a guy like Lomborg.
I actually like the idea of seeking out people who have fought the battles, but there are also those who are great synthesizers of other people's work. I can't point the latter out as I generally avoid academia like the plague. I'd say anyone in business can't help but get something out of an hour or two with guys like James H. Simons, Jack Welch, Jamie Dimon, Rupert Murdoch, Mark Hurd, Herb Kelleher, Andy Grove, Michael Milken, Jeff Bezos, John Bogle and Will Wright.
Or he can set up a self study course for balance - Munehisa Homna's "Fountain of Gold," "The Functions of the Executive" by Chester I. Barnard, "The Human Side of Enterprise" by Douglas McGregor,"The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations" by James Surowieki, "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century" by Thomas L Friedman, "The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference" by Malcolm Gladwell, "Blue Ocean Strategy" by Kim and Mauborgne, "Results Without Authority" by Tom Kendrick, lots of knowledge synthesis out there and sometimes a good read gets the individual creative juices going enough to make a difference.
One of my favorite quotes from popular culture -
"You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library."
? Will Hunting (played by Matt Damon), Good Will Hunting
:laugh:
- Feb 8, 2001
- 4,822
- 0
- 0
Using Wikipedia as a reference to show there is consensus on human causation for global warming/cooling is kinda dangerous.
One thing l do know, having experienced it hundreds of times over, is that consensus does not mean accuracy or truth - one person can get it right, and a hundred may agree and be wrong.
Science keeps moving forward, guys. The "consensus," for what it is worth, is shifting toward much greater uncertainty as the determinative model is being recognized as much more complex than originally conceived. Natural, not man made, causative factors for climate change are gaining much more importance. CO2 as a causative factor has mostly been invalidated in the latest studies and CO2 forms the basis for the old "consensus."
We might be better served by using paleontology rather than political climatology to come up with national priority setting.
I could spend hours and hours offering scientific references from people a lot smarter than I am to "prove" my point but I'd rather go hang out at the beach and enjoy some global warming.
One thing l do know, having experienced it hundreds of times over, is that consensus does not mean accuracy or truth - one person can get it right, and a hundred may agree and be wrong.
Science keeps moving forward, guys. The "consensus," for what it is worth, is shifting toward much greater uncertainty as the determinative model is being recognized as much more complex than originally conceived. Natural, not man made, causative factors for climate change are gaining much more importance. CO2 as a causative factor has mostly been invalidated in the latest studies and CO2 forms the basis for the old "consensus."
We might be better served by using paleontology rather than political climatology to come up with national priority setting.
I could spend hours and hours offering scientific references from people a lot smarter than I am to "prove" my point but I'd rather go hang out at the beach and enjoy some global warming.
a few thoughts:
those of you saying Al Gore is the problem here - you are the problem - just because you don't like someone doesn't mean what he's saying or trying to do is wrong. I met Al Gore in 1987, and he was talking about the environment even back then. He and his family have always been wealthy. This isn't something he jumped into because he saw $$, it's something he's believed in for a long, long time.
Discussions like this are a thousand times smarter than the global warming naysayers that still populate this place and their typical spew of garbage and bad data. Cleaner air, and less reliance on foreign fuel sources - global warming or no global warming - are still viable goals and should be pursued. We finally have an administration that allows the science to dictate policy efforts, not the other way around - this is a good thing.
As for India and China - believe me, if someone creates cleaner/cheaper energy sources, they will jump on board too. Just because they aren't taking some of the initiatives we and other countries are taking doesn't mean we should be acting.
those of you saying Al Gore is the problem here - you are the problem - just because you don't like someone doesn't mean what he's saying or trying to do is wrong. I met Al Gore in 1987, and he was talking about the environment even back then. He and his family have always been wealthy. This isn't something he jumped into because he saw $$, it's something he's believed in for a long, long time.
Discussions like this are a thousand times smarter than the global warming naysayers that still populate this place and their typical spew of garbage and bad data. Cleaner air, and less reliance on foreign fuel sources - global warming or no global warming - are still viable goals and should be pursued. We finally have an administration that allows the science to dictate policy efforts, not the other way around - this is a good thing.
As for India and China - believe me, if someone creates cleaner/cheaper energy sources, they will jump on board too. Just because they aren't taking some of the initiatives we and other countries are taking doesn't mean we should be acting.
There is always lots of anecdotal data. There are always this in denial that their ox has gored somebody else's cow. There is plenty of info on the web you can find that says the earth is flat. As a rational person I don't go with what suites my tastes. I go with the scientific consensus and on global warming that is perfectly clear. All this crap, and I do think it is crap, that says there is more and more doubt and the consensus is going the other way, is, in my opinion, just the result of you selectively choosing what you want to familiarize yourself with. Go check out the flat earth people and read their stuff. You will find rather quickly that the evidence the world is round is in grave doubt.
I googled what is the scientific consensus on global warming and wiki was just one link i picked at random. The consensus is the same as it was the last I checked years ago.
Squisher
Lifer
- Aug 17, 2000
- 21,204
- 66
- 91
Even if Global Warming were man made there is no reason to think that the entire world should enact the measures necessary to reverse this warming because these measures would bankrupt the world economy and thereby cause a loss of life greater than Global Warming would do.
more poor people = more dead people
more poor people = more dead people
The scientific consensus is that it is not flat but that has no relevance to those who insist it is.
So you are saying there was never a consensus of scientists in the past that held the view that the earth was flat? Try again...
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter