Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote: Its a good question though.....so what? So what if anything happens? So what if Ebola runs rampant through the United States killing off millions of people? The strong and resistant will survive and life will go on.

It's not like I relish the possibility, of course. I'm firmly in the camp of "let's do something about it before this happens." I just try to acknowledge the reality that there's probably no way enough of human society will actually implement the requisite changes, and as a result, many people will be hurt or die, and we will all have to deal with the consequences. I actually think it's a fairly conservative prediction since that's the only thing that has ever happened throughout human history.

doodle,

Another question:  What is is the "climate change" crusaders who seem to lean solidly left are afraid of losing?  If the answer is people, then why promote abortion?  If the answer is lifestyle, then why not encourage people to work for a living?  If the answer is equality of results, then why not encourage rising ocean levels as it will hurt the rich more than the poor?  I really just do not understand what the fear is.

... Mountaineer

See, I don't see reducing carbon emissions as being that difficult or onerous. My monthly powerbill in my condo is about 25 dollars. I could easily generate enough electricity for myself with a few square meters of solar panels. I have a stove, fridge, computer, TV, internet etc. etc. Im not living in a cave, but I could easily go carbon neutral.

Global warming is a risk. Risk has a cost associated with it. Those who want to engage in risky behavior should bear the price.....not me. That is a freeloader problem and a loophole in the free market economy.

Mountaineer wrote: doodle,

Another question:  What is is the "climate change" crusaders who seem to lean solidly left are afraid of losing?  If the answer is people, then why promote abortion?  If the answer is lifestyle, then why not encourage people to work for a living?  If the answer is equality of results, then why not encourage rising ocean levels as it will hurt the rich more than the poor?  I really just do not understand what the fear is.

... Mountaineer

I don't see this as a "left" "right" issue.....that is simply how the media and politicians have decided to play the issue. In fact, I would think the right being "conservative" would be more adamant about not doing anything to radically change the planets climate......funny how politics is so non-sensical.

Philsophically speaking you ask some good questions. I guess its the unknowns that will result that make scientists afraid.

Imagine an asteroid was coming towards the Earth and we could calculate the impact zone so that people could be moved out of harms way. One group of people said this was the course of action we should take and we would deal with the after effects later. Another group said there was a 50% chance of deflecting the asteroid so that it wouldn't impact Earth but it would require all the economic productivity of the world for 2 years in order to build the technology in order to attempt this.

What camp would you be in? The let it hit us and deal with the same climactic effects that killed off the dinosaurs....or sacrifice now for a chance at having it not hit us?

Mountaineer wrote: doodle,

Another question:  What is is the "climate change" crusaders who seem to lean solidly left are afraid of losing?  If the answer is people, then why promote abortion?  If the answer is lifestyle, then why not encourage people to work for a living?  If the answer is equality of results, then why not encourage rising ocean levels as it will hurt the rich more than the poor?  I really just do not understand what the fear is.

... Mountaineer

The goal from the ones funding the studies and forming the so-called "grass-roots" movements is control of humans, theft of resources and land.

The rest are useful followers.

doodle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: doodle,

Another question:  What is is the "climate change" crusaders who seem to lean solidly left are afraid of losing?  If the answer is people, then why promote abortion?  If the answer is lifestyle, then why not encourage people to work for a living?  If the answer is equality of results, then why not encourage rising ocean levels as it will hurt the rich more than the poor?  I really just do not understand what the fear is.

... Mountaineer

I don't see this as a "left" "right" issue.....that is simply how the media and politicians have decided to play the issue. In fact, I would think the right being "conservative" would be more adamant about not doing anything to radically change the planets climate......funny how politics is so non-sensical.

Philsophically speaking you ask some good questions. I guess its the unknowns that will result that make scientists afraid.

Imagine an asteroid was coming towards the Earth and we could calculate the impact zone so that people could be moved out of harms way. One group of people said this was the course of action we should take. Another group said there was a 50% chance of deflecting the asteroid so that it wouldn't impact Earth but it would require all the economic productivity of the world for 2 years in order to build the technology in order to attempt this.

What camp would you be in? The let it hit us and deal with it....or sacrifice now for a chance at having it not hit us?

I can't answer.  You did not give all the necessary facts.  What is the cost to move the people?  What is the lost opportunity cost of both cases, etc. etc. etc.  Your scenario is exactly why I'm agnostic toward man caused climate change - incomplete data and heavily emotion (and politics) based.  Not science in my opinion (please do remember I'm a trained scientist of the engineer (i.e. practical bent) flavor).

... Mountaineer

Kshartle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: doodle,

Another question:  What is is the "climate change" crusaders who seem to lean solidly left are afraid of losing?  If the answer is people, then why promote abortion?  If the answer is lifestyle, then why not encourage people to work for a living?  If the answer is equality of results, then why not encourage rising ocean levels as it will hurt the rich more than the poor?  I really just do not understand what the fear is.

... Mountaineer

The goal from the ones funding the studies and forming the so-called "grass-roots" movements is control of humans, theft of resources and land.

The rest are useful followers.

PS and you agreed on something today.  Count me in on agreeing with you too.  "Control" is the operative word ... think climate control, gun control, birth control, traffic control, ordinances, laws, regulations thousands of pages thick.  We have far, far, exceeded the purpose of government being to reduce chaos and promote peace ... it has turned into control run amock!

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer wrote:

doodle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: doodle,

Another question:  What is is the "climate change" crusaders who seem to lean solidly left are afraid of losing?  If the answer is people, then why promote abortion?  If the answer is lifestyle, then why not encourage people to work for a living?  If the answer is equality of results, then why not encourage rising ocean levels as it will hurt the rich more than the poor?  I really just do not understand what the fear is.

... Mountaineer

I don't see this as a "left" "right" issue.....that is simply how the media and politicians have decided to play the issue. In fact, I would think the right being "conservative" would be more adamant about not doing anything to radically change the planets climate......funny how politics is so non-sensical.

Philsophically speaking you ask some good questions. I guess its the unknowns that will result that make scientists afraid.

Imagine an asteroid was coming towards the Earth and we could calculate the impact zone so that people could be moved out of harms way. One group of people said this was the course of action we should take. Another group said there was a 50% chance of deflecting the asteroid so that it wouldn't impact Earth but it would require all the economic productivity of the world for 2 years in order to build the technology in order to attempt this.

What camp would you be in? The let it hit us and deal with it....or sacrifice now for a chance at having it not hit us?

I can't answer.  You did not give all the necessary facts.  What is the cost to move the people?  What is the lost opportunity cost of both cases, etc. etc. etc.  Your scenario is exactly why I'm agnostic toward man caused climate change - incomplete data and heavily emotion (and politics) based.  Not science in my opinion (please do remember I'm a trained scientist of the engineer (i.e. practical bent) flavor).

... Mountaineer

You shouldn't need any more facts....the cost to move people is the effort required to do so....imagine a hurricane Katrina type scenario in terms of relocation scale.

1. Asteroid impacts earth and quickly changes climate in unpredictable fashion. Asteroid is same size as one that extinguished dinosaurs. There are no more facts cause who knows the effects.....could be okay.....could be terrible.

2. Sacrifice 2 years of economic activity to build asteroid deflection mechanism.

doodle wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

doodle wrote: I don't see this as a "left" "right" issue.....that is simply how the media and politicians have decided to play the issue. In fact, I would think the right being "conservative" would be more adamant about not doing anything to radically change the planets climate......funny how politics is so non-sensical.

Philsophically speaking you ask some good questions. I guess its the unknowns that will result that make scientists afraid.

Imagine an asteroid was coming towards the Earth and we could calculate the impact zone so that people could be moved out of harms way. One group of people said this was the course of action we should take. Another group said there was a 50% chance of deflecting the asteroid so that it wouldn't impact Earth but it would require all the economic productivity of the world for 2 years in order to build the technology in order to attempt this.

What camp would you be in? The let it hit us and deal with it....or sacrifice now for a chance at having it not hit us?

I can't answer.  You did not give all the necessary facts.  What is the cost to move the people?  What is the lost opportunity cost of both cases, etc. etc. etc.  Your scenario is exactly why I'm agnostic toward man caused climate change - incomplete data and heavily emotion (and politics) based.  Not science in my opinion (please do remember I'm a trained scientist of the engineer (i.e. practical bent) flavor).

... Mountaineer

You shouldn't need any more facts....the cost to move people is the effort required to do so....imagine a hurricane Katrina type scenario in terms of relocation scale.

1. Asteroid impacts earth and quickly changes climate in unpredictable fashion. Asteroid is same size as one that extinguished dinosaurs. There are no more facts cause who knows the effects.....could be okay.....could be terrible.

2. Sacrifice 2 years of economic activity to build asteroid deflection mechanism.

Want to include any facts about probability (and all those missed opportunity costs you breezed over) related to all the various scenarios and risks and outcomes?  Or are you sticking with a disasterous emotional case?  It appears you have absolutely no clue as to what is required to evaluate the hypothetical scenario you outlined.  I'm being kind.  A more "scientific" response would likely rip your balls off.    Why can you not accept everyone does not see it your way that you think is so ironclad?  This to me is another symptom of the zealous, failure to really listen for understanding.

... Mountaineer

Opportunity costs? A large asteroid is going to hit the earth man....it will take two years of diverting resources from hair weaves and fancy cappuccinos to avert a massive climate changing event.

I'm not sure how much more detail you need.

If a robber were to put a gun to your head and said...give me two years of income or I will put a bullet in your head. You might live or you might not die but you are certainly going to suffer would you ask for more information so you could more accurately calculate the opportunity costs?

doodle wrote: Opportunity costs? A large asteroid is going to hit the earth man....it will take two years of diverting resources from hair weaves and fancy cappuccinos to avert a massive climate changing event.

I'm not sure how much more detail you need.

If a robber were to put a gun to your head and said...give me two years of income or I will put a bullet in your head. You might live or you might not die but you are certainly going to suffer would you ask for more information so you could more accurately calculate the opportunity costs?

doodle,

In all respect, any time you present two scenarios, you need facts to evaluate them.  First of all, you did not present any probability data.  Are you saying there is 100% probability of asteroid hitting earth?  And 100% probablility it will be just like the one that supposedly (no facts here, just hypothesis) wiped out dinos?  And 100% probablity it will take two years of !00% all resources needed to avoid the asteroid - that is no resources to feed and shelter ourselves in the meantime?  Can you see that what is so very clear in your own mind might not be quite so clear to others?  If you really feel you have presented all the facts, I see no reason to continue the conversation on this matter as it is obvious you don't care what I think, you have made up your mind already.  YOU ARE NOT LISTENING!  And I really do mean that kindly ... look in the mirror, friend, as I'm trying to do.

... Mountaineer

Yes,

The asteroid is the same size as the one that wiped out dinosaurs....the exact effects of the impact are unknown. It could be horribly catastrophic or..it could just cause a decade of colder weather. At the very least it will force rapid adaptation to new environmental conditions. The chance of impact is 100% however we will be able to predict where impact point will be so there will be no immediate loss of life.

There is a possibility of building a device to deflect asteroid that has about a 50% chance of success. Building this device would require sacrificing 2 years of discretionary consumption. You can stay in your house, you will have food and what not but all other economic activity and materials will be diverted to making this device.

doodle wrote: Yes,

The asteroid is the same size as the one that wiped out dinosaurs....the exact effects of the impact are unknown. It could be horribly catastrophic or..it could just cause a decade of colder weather. At the very least it will force rapid adaptation to new environmental conditions. The chance of impact is 100% however we will be able to predict where impact point will be so there will be no immediate loss of life.

There is a possibility of building a device to deflect asteroid that has about a 50% chance of success. Building this device would require sacrificing 2 years of discretionary consumption. You can stay in your house, you will have food and what not but all other economic activity and materials will be diverted to making this device.

OK, since I have very limited facts and probabilities, I'll pick letting it hit vs. probable total world economic destruction.  Wiping out the dinos is just a hypothesis anyway, maybe it really did not go that way.  I know with 100% certainty where I'll end up regardless, no matter what really comes to pass physically.  I know who is in charge.  I'm good to go.

Which do you pick?

... Mountaineer

So to take that hypothetical and apply it to my robber scenario....

You would choose the bullet in the head and the possibility of being dead or a permanent vegetable instead of giving up two years of salary..

That is an interesting choice....I think you are full of crap though 

I know with 100% certainty where I'll end up regardless, no matter what really comes to pass physically.  I know who is in charge.  I'm good to go.

Maybe it was a test by God to see whether you were willing to sacrifice fancy cappuccino and hair weaves to save humanity and you just failed by your own greed.

doodle wrote:

I know with 100% certainty where I'll end up regardless, no matter what really comes to pass physically.  I know who is in charge.  I'm good to go.

Maybe it was a test by God to see whether you were willing to sacrifice fancy cappuccino and hair weaves to save humanity and you just failed by your own greed.

Maybe.  We shall see.  Just recognize you are betting your life (eternal that is) on your being god and knowing all.

... Mountaineer

doodle wrote: So to take that hypothetical and apply it to my robber scenario....

You would choose the bullet in the head and the possibility of being dead or a permanent vegetable instead of giving up two years of salary..

That is an interesting choice....I think you are full of crap though 

You are correct.  I am full of crap.  That is why I poop daily. 

And, just remember, "man does not live by bread alone" so greed is not really all that appealing to me. 

And, all those resources you wish to waste on a pipe dream (pursuit of solving a very speculative problem) could be better used on solving some problems that really do exist.  Peace.

... Mountaineer

doodle, why did they stop calling it global warming?

Who is "they"? The media? Politicians?

Global warming and climate change have both been used by scientists since the 50s. The globe is warming...this warming causes a change in climate.

doodle wrote: Who is "they"? The media? Politicians?

Global warming and climate change have both been used by scientists since the 50s. The globe is warming...this warming causes a change in climate.

This is a big straw man put up by anti-climate-changers. That the science isn't only up for debate, but so utterly bunk that they're just making up new names for the same lie.

This is what bothers me about many on that side.  They often bounce between global warming being complete bs, and it just being up for debate considering the difficulty in implementing a mitigation process (I think we are past the point of being able to call anything a solution). Not all of them do this, but I've noticed some prominent anti-gw'ers flail all over on exactly what their position is. I can't even tell what their position is on whether the earth is warming or not.

Climate change is an important addition to global warming science... Not a rewriting of it.

moda0306 wrote:

doodle wrote: Who is "they"? The media? Politicians?

Global warming and climate change have both been used by scientists since the 50s. The globe is warming...this warming causes a change in climate.

This is a big straw man put up by anti-climate-changers. That the science isn't only up for debate, but so utterly bunk that they're just making up new names for the same lie.

This is what bothers me about many on that side.  They often bounce between global warming being complete bs, and it just being up for debate considering the difficulty in implementing a mitigation process (I think we are past the point of being able to call anything a solution). Not all of them do this, but I've noticed some prominent anti-gw'ers flail all over on exactly what their position is. I can't even tell what their position is on whether the earth is warming or not.

Climate change is an important addition to global warming science... Not a rewriting of it.

Is the globe warming?  Yes
Is the globe cooling? Yes
Is the globe spinning?  Yes
Is the globe's spin slowing?  Yes
What are the consequences of the globe slowing?  Who knows
Are the consequences preventable?  Who knows
Is the climate changing? Yes
What are the consequences?  Who knows
Are the consequences preventable?  Who knows

My point:  There is always something to be alarmed about by those who live in fear of some catastrophic event that MIGHT happen, no matter the unknown probability (i.e. I'm coming to realize the fear comes from being out of control and that is something the left leaners abhor ... fits in with gun control, economy control and the whole "control" list; in other words, "they" know what is better for me than I do as I've stated previously.  This thirst for control likely even fits in with the anti-Christianity bent as "they" see Christianity as just one more area where "they" are not in control.  Or perhaps, if Christianity is accepted, only the "progressive" or social justice focused denominations are deemed appropriate; i.e. the denominations that do not adhere to confessional Christianity where Scriptural inerrancy, taken in context, is taught.)

... Mountaineer

Tyler wrote: Good entertainment.  Very educational for a young person.  Strong on scientific basics.  But IMHO short on a thorough and honest analysis of a complicated issue.

I concur.  I found it to be one of the weakest Cosmos episodes.  It lacked hardcore facts, tried to appeal emotionally and the failed ending really drove that point home.  Maybe a breed apart from sensationalist tripe like An Inconvenient Truth but still disappointly superficial.  I expect much better from Cosmos, but it appears they are taking off on the original series rather than breaking new ground.

This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Why is it acceptable in the global warming cult that a persuasion consensus counts as scientific evidence instead of it being vetted through the peer review process and the scientific method?

These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.[/b][/u]

How do "we" know?  So white was black and now black was white?  Volcanoes back then caused global cooling, but now they cause global warming?  Where's the proof.

doodle wrote: Yes, but the speed at which we are changing the climate is quite a radical deviation from the natural cycles that the Earth goes through. Also, man has not figured out how to live (at least with what most would define as a decent standard of living) outside of the natural ecosystem. Warming of our climate has massive ecological implications that could seriously undermine the survival of our species, our civilization, and quality of life.

Cosmos said humans are dumping 60 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.  If this is true, where is the global warming?  Is there a lag effect?

doodle wrote: This years crazy cold winter was actually above the historical mean temperature.

Cosmos said the short term changes in weather are distractions and are not the climate.