Gyroscopic Investing

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:54 pm**

moda0306 wrote:When dealing with the subject of risk, very smart people can be EXTREEEEEEMLY stupid. Same with politics. Same with present-valuing long-term consequences. AGW combines all three. I'm absolutely convinced that there will be no "convincing" of conservatives to the point of gaining their majority approval until it is too late.

So move the ball forward without them.

So people are terrible at dealing with risk, present value, and politics, therefore the logical thing you assume is that the side you agree with is completely right and the other is completely wrong?

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:02 pm**

moda0306 wrote: Perhaps I should have been more specific... "Pragmatic" king for a day. What can I propose, within the current structure, that would have a decent chance of actually happening in this universe...

Oh. Well then, nothing. Within those constraints, we should just try to personally prepare.

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:08 pm**

Mountaineer wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
Benko wrote: Moda,

I really appreciate the time for the long note, but I don't think you really get what goes on. Suppose 100% of economists agreed that minimum wage hurts people and increased unemployment. How many hollywood actors/liberal activists would be convinced? Zero. But wait you say, scientists are objective people who are trained etc., etc. Sorry, I"ve been around too many and know too much history of medicien and science and many even scientists cling to wrong idea (hopefully in smaller numbers than the activists).

NB: Max Plank was a Nobel prize winning physicist who wrote:

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”?

So you have a nobel prize winning physicist telling you that good luck changing the mind of scientists.

I should add that engineers tend to be practical people, (they have to be or else things blow up or don't produce what they are supposed to) so I would suspect that engineers are better at accepting new data since they get real world feedback within a short time frame. Plus they tend to get fired if what they do doesn't work.

Oh and the 97% figure is not accurate.
Who do we have to convince? Do I have to convince a thief that he's wrong in stealing from me and to pay me back, or do I just carry a gun in my home and defend myself if necessary.

So far, 97% of climate scientists (could you point me to your alternative number? Try reading this as well: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... sensus.htm) and dozens of prominent scientific organizations believe in AGW.

Most liberals are convinced, due to the consensus.

Most conservatives aren't. So you're telling me I have to "convince" them to stop polluting? What more do they need?

When dealing with the subject of risk, very smart people can be EXTREEEEEEMLY stupid. Same with politics. Same with present-valuing long-term consequences. AGW combines all three. I'm absolutely convinced that there will be no "convincing" of conservatives to the point of gaining their majority approval until it is too late.

So move the ball forward without them. Like ANY solution that involves government or arbitrary property claims, obviously, force and taxes will be involved. I know that sounds mean. I don't mean it like that. We went to war without my being convinced. Sprawl ensues without my being convinced it's not inducing harm to the environment. I am not convinced that the way most farm animals are being treated in this country is not causing an absolutely massive amount of pain and misery.

Things happen whether or not everyone is "convinced." Sometimes they're good. Sometimes not. I'm not much for judging things on the popularity of the masses. I'd prefer a technocratic dictatorship . Benevolent of course .
moda,

I get a kick out of your reasoning, it is so predictable (as is with many libs I know):

You. Jews are horrible people.

Me. Why? I don't agree, Jews are nice people and are a child of God.

You. Get on board or get out of the way or stick your head in the sand while "WE" move on. After all, 97% of us Nazi fanatics support that Jews are horrible people.

You. Heil Hitler! Krystal Knacht is a coming whether you like it or not

... Mountaineer

Godwin's Law has been invoked, folks.

How many people should be "convinced" before enacting policy? Of course it's going to be difficult to convince the higher-consuming half of a country that has 5% of the world's population but burns 20% of its oil that there is pollution (ie, theft) occurring on a massive scale.

But since in this instance you appear concerned with how something is polling as to whether a certain policy should be taken, here you go:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the ... -8-charts/

69% of people think the earth is warming.
42% believe it is due to human activity.

... says one poll. Another says 49% of people think it's due to human activity.

But more importantly, I think, is the question "Do you think the federal government should or should not regulate the release of greenhouse gases from sources like power plants, cars, and factories in an effort to reduce global warming?"

The answer:

Should be regulated: 74%
Should not be regulated: 21%

Also, it appears 84% of scientists in one poll agreed with AGW, so maybe that's where Benko was getting his info on "consensus."

So 84% of scientists believe in AGW, and 74% of adults want to regulate greenhouse gases. Is that not enough?

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:20 pm**

Xan wrote:
moda0306 wrote:When dealing with the subject of risk, very smart people can be EXTREEEEEEMLY stupid. Same with politics. Same with present-valuing long-term consequences. AGW combines all three. I'm absolutely convinced that there will be no "convincing" of conservatives to the point of gaining their majority approval until it is too late.

So move the ball forward without them.
So people are terrible at dealing with risk, present value, and politics, therefore the logical thing you assume is that the side you agree with is completely right and the other is completely wrong?

Nobody is completely anything. Further, those traits of people are only one of my many premises in my conclusion that AGW is a threat worth having the governments of the world take seriously.

What you are asking is probably more like: why would you assume those traits of your opponent rather than (or more-so) than your side of the issue...

And it is simply that 1) the fact that SCIENTISTS, rather than my buddy who builds houses, are the ones who are building a consensus, goes a LONG way. This sounds elitist. It is in some ways. Less-educated OR very interest-vested people seem to simply not like their utility and gas bill very much every month, and don't want it to go up... 2) I see a much more consistent, clear message coming from climate change advocates than skeptics. They argue their points better in a true discussion of the topic. They seem to have their relevant facts straighter.

Climate skeptics try to say we are cooling, and then when they're smacked down on those facts, they say "well it's not our fault," and then they get out-debated, then they say "well there's nothing we can do that won't tank the economy," which is further debatable. Then they'll move to George Carlin quotes

.

JK... but if we take the loony left and loony right out of the equation, and only listen to those that are scientifically minded, or at least trying to respect some research rather than just pose emotional BS based on the team they've chosen, skeptics don't stack up very well.

So I feel that "my side" has more respect for the pertinent facts in those areas: risk, present-value, and politics because, quite simply, they have shown to. If somebody tells me, "I don't believe in liability insurance," or "I don't believe in diversification," or "I don't believe in any government," based on dozens of conversations I've had and research I've done and things I've seen, my conclusion is that they simply haven't thought through their arguments well enough.

I could be wrong, but it certainly isn't due to just "assuming" "my side" is correct. I don't "pick a side" until I deem their arguments to have merit, and I'm not shy about either 1) switching sides, or 2) pointing out where my side has got it wrong.

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:20 pm**

Moda,

It is revealing that you are not speaking of scientific truth i.e. what is actually happening, but rather what people think is happening.

PS,

your ideas are excellent, and forgetting #1, we should implement the rest. WHat you suggest is well thought out, and has relatively little downside. But of course the environmentalists would never allow nuclear anything.

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:30 pm**

I think we should decide whether popularity matters or whether it doesn't, and then apply that to everything. Otherwise it's way too easy to fall into the pattern of discounting popular things you oppose but using popularity as an argument in favor of the thing you approve of.

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:38 pm**

Pointedstick wrote:
moda0306 wrote: Perhaps I should have been more specific... "Pragmatic" king for a day. What can I propose, within the current structure, that would have a decent chance of actually happening in this universe...
Oh. Well then, nothing. Within those constraints, we should just try to personally prepare.

Ha. To build on Mountaineer's suggestion that I was getting a little too authoritarian, perhaps we should take all climate skeptics, and move them all to Florida. If the seas don't rise, they've all got a beautiful, sunny state to enjoy. If they do, well... Krystal Knacht.

Totally kidding, fellas... dark sense of humor coming through.

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:46 pm**

moda0306 wrote:
Pointedstick wrote:
moda0306 wrote: Perhaps I should have been more specific... "Pragmatic" king for a day. What can I propose, within the current structure, that would have a decent chance of actually happening in this universe...
Oh. Well then, nothing. Within those constraints, we should just try to personally prepare.
Ha. To build on Mountaineer's suggestion that I was getting a little too authoritarian, perhaps we should take all climate skeptics, and move them all to Florida. If the seas don't rise, they've all got a beautiful, sunny state to enjoy. If they do, well... Krystal Knacht.

Totally kidding, fellas... dark sense of humor coming through.

Actually, not a bad idea. Now, if we can only get dear follower to move to Israel ..............

... Mountaineer

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:48 pm**

Benko wrote: Moda,

It is revealing that you are not speaking of scientific truth i.e. what is actually happening, but rather what people think is happening.

That's because we can't do experiments with climate like we can with gravity, light, friction, etc. I realize there is not going to be a 99.9999% consensus truth on something so unprovable.

But then again, we haven't yet established whether there IS a burden of absolute proof, nor on what parties a burden of any proof applies. If I'm going to radically change the surface of the earth and burn fossil fuels into the atmosphere, perhaps I have some burdens to prove things first, rather than the environmentalists or other property owners proving I polluted.

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:50 pm**

Pointedstick wrote: I think we should decide whether popularity matters or whether it doesn't, and then apply that to everything. Otherwise it's way too easy to fall into the pattern of discounting popular things you oppose but using popularity as an argument in favor of the thing you approve of.

Pragmatically, it matters.

On a macro-level, it could be argued that having democracies (of sorts) produces a more peaceful outcome due to the subconscious "participation" one feels when they vote.

Beyond that, we should be very careful not to just assume that it matters. Two wolves. One sheep. Dinner's on.

Posted: **Mon Jul 28, 2014 3:01 pm**

moda0306 wrote:
Pointedstick wrote: I think we should decide whether popularity matters or whether it doesn't, and then apply that to everything. Otherwise it's way too easy to fall into the pattern of discounting popular things you oppose but using popularity as an argument in favor of the thing you approve of.
Pragmatically, it matters.

On a macro-level, it could be argued that having democracies (of sorts) produces a more peaceful outcome due to the subconscious "participation" one feels when they vote.

Beyond that, we should be very careful not to just assume that it matters. Two wolves. One sheep. Dinner's on.

That, my dear friend, depends on your beliefs. The Lamb of God has conquered all! Dinner's on, wolf barbecue, smoked, tender, moist!

... Mountaineer

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:48 pm**

Tenn,

I favor those as well, but I want to be clear to make the point that the most "natural" way to account for externalities is simply to tax them properly and let the market invest around the expensive fossil fuels, not to "pick winners and losers" by organizing grants, loans, "prizes," etc. A tax can be used to put a cost on polluters that is effectively paying everyone else for the pollution (you could even create a system that recognized the amount collected in taxes each year and paid it out in a "carbon dividend" to all the young people in the country to compensate for all the boomers' pollution).

A subsidy is essentially charging ALL tax-payers (or U.S. currency-users, if we are looking at this via a MR lense), no matter how much they've polluted, to pay for the owners of the means of production to invest their time/energy into green energy. Instead of charging the polluters to pay the victims, you're charging the public (many of whom will be victims (younger people)) to pay the owners of capital with subsidized loans. And some engineers in there too...

The reason the stick largely doesn't work is because taxes aren't expansionary, people hate them, and conservatives lose their effing minds when taxes go up. Not to mention, new ideas are sometimes too capital intensive to be worth it for the private sector under current intellectual property law. There's simply too much to bet on for only 14 years of patent and the risks associated with it.

But subsidizing preferred energy is no different than what the government does when it does loan guarantees in educaton and home ownership, and look where conservatives insist that this got us? High education prices and a housing bubble (though libs would argue there are other key causes).

I just wanted to point that out... I agree that a carrot is preferable, but we have to realize what this says about how our government interacts with the private sector... realizing that it's actually a MORE activist policy than just taxing an externality and paying victims.

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:04 pm**

For those of you who are staunch supporters of AGW, let's assume that AGW is really a proven truth so we can move a bit further down the road. And, perhaps it will help assure that we avoid the trap of "Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion has a nice bit which speaks to the discussion we are having regarding discounting the validity of a science when we disagree with the findings" that TennPaGa described earlier. Maybe we can get out of the realm of hand waving into the realm of specifics and a clearer basis for opinion when facts are not available. Facts, just the facts mam, as Sergeant Joe Friday would say.

What are the consequences of AGW? Be specific and list each beneficial or undesirable consequence (call them scenario a., b. c., etc. - see below for examples *) and document the basis for that consequence (e.g. some type of scientific proof, or at least some authorative opinion and destinguish between proof or opinion). Then for each scenario (a., b., c., etc.) list your understanding of this line of reasoning that I described several pages back:

Is it possible for that scenario to happen? Why do you think so?

What is the probability for that scenario to happen? How is that probability determined?

What are the consequences, desirable and undesirable, if the scenario happens?

If the scenario happens, do we know how to influence it before hand to a more desirable outcome?

What is the cost in terms of capital and effort to influence that desirable outcome?

Where will that capital and effort come from to provide that influence?

What is the lost opportunity cost for other desirable endeavors if we divert resources to pursue better understanding of this scenario?

Considering all the above, state a cost-benefit analysis and develop a plan to move forward?

How do you propose to obtain buy-in to the plan?

Examples of possible scenarios - please use your own, i.e. what are you concerned about due to AGW

* Global ocean levels rise 1 foot within the next 50 years.
* 15% increase in plant food sources by 2040 due to increased CO2
* 20% increase in asthma cases by 2025
* Asthma medical research funds increase by 300% by 2030
* Coal sourced electrical generation in US stops by 2025
* Atmospheric CO2 levels unexpectedly revert to 50 ppm by 2050

... Mountaineer

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:23 pm**

I don't have the time, yet, to go into too much detail, but here are 3 big concerns of mine:

1) Release of methane from Siberia, possibly exacerbating warming problem.

2) Ice-sheet sliding off of Greenland, upsetting natural flow of Ocean that brings warm water to Europe, possibly causing much more massive climate changes in Europe.

3) Since our cities are often located on the coasts, any material increase in ocean levels could be very troublesome for certain cities.

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:34 pm**

moda0306 wrote: I don't have the time, yet, to go into too much detail, but here are 3 big concerns of mine:

1) Release of methane from Siberia, possibly exacerbating warming problem.

2) Ice-sheet sliding off of Greenland, upsetting natural flow of Ocean that brings warm water to Europe, possibly causing much more massive climate changes in Europe.

3) Since our cities are often located on the coasts, any material increase in ocean levels could be very troublesome for certain cities.

Thanks moda. Good start. I'll follow up with some additional questions, trying to flesh out what you are concerned about. Let's try to be very, very specific so we don't end up wrestling with another bowl of Jello.

1. OK, so we are warming. Why is a methane release a problem? Or a benefit? It almost seems you said I'm concerned about AGW because the planet will warm? What is the issue that is disturbing to you?

2. Ditto number one. Why are your concerned about climate change in Europe? Change for the better? Change for the worse? What is change? What is the root issue?

3. How much of an increase in water level over what time period causes you heart burn? Do you fear the cities will not be able to adapt in time? Or it will cost too much? More than stoping AGW? Dilution of the ocean by fresh water and sea life will die? Again, what is the root concern?

Maybe when we get to the real "root concerns" of the AGW supporters, some answers to my questions a couple of posts back will become clear and can get some attention.

... Mountaineer

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 3:36 pm**

TennPaGa wrote: I am unclear what actions ought to be taken in response to this. In general, though, I favor carrots over sticks, I favor solutions which won't be born primarily by the poor, and favor small actions over sweeping mandates. More specifically, I favor research on CO2-neutral and CO2-free energy.

Aside from nuclear which I think is Co2 neutral (but not environmentalist neutral) I am not sure off the top of my head I know which energy sources are Co2 neutral. But if my guess if correct, it sounds like your suggestions would:

--decrease conventional pollution
--not produce economic hardship
--result in newer energy cources which are cheap, hopefully competitively priced alternatives to what is currently available
--not do any "social engineering"

All good things.

Posted: **Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:34 pm**

Obama and minions have been talking up impeachment, likely as as preventative medicine to him giving amnesty to e.g. large number e.g. millions of illegal immigrants presently in the country. I'm sure the board folks would (as always) consider that no different than other presidents have done. I don't agree.

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:53 am**

http://www.pagunblog.com/2014/07/30/quo ... overreach/

National Review’s Yuval Levin hits on what I really don’t like about the Obama Administration:

In one sense, the approach the president is said to be contemplating does fit into a pattern of his use of executive power. That pattern involves taking provocative executive actions on sensitive, divisive issues to isolate people he detests, knowing it will invite a sharp response, and then using the response to scare his own base voters into thinking they are under assault when in fact they are on the offensive. That’s how moving to compel nuns to buy contraception and abortive drugs for their employees became “they’re trying to take away your birth control.”? This strategy needlessly divides the country and brings out the worst instincts of people on all sides, but it has obvious benefits for the administration and its allies. Liberals get both the substantive action and the political benefit of calling their opponents radicals and getting their supporters worked up. Obama’s legalization of millions would surely draw a response that could then be depicted as evidence of Republican hostility to immigrants, rather than of Republican hostility to illegal executive overreach that tries to make highly significant policy changes outside the bounds of our constitutional order.
It’s not that he’s liberal. I’ve been through liberal presidents in my lifetime. Despite Clinton being far more damaging on guns than Barack Obama could ever dream of, I never developed the visceral dislike of Clinton Administration that I have for the Obama Administration. Maybe that’s partly psychological. The Clinton years were good. I look back fondly on that time in life. In contrast, the Obama years have been hellish both financially and in always feeling like we’re living on the razors edge just a hair’s breath away from losing everything we thought we believed about this country.

Philosophically, I think Barack Obama is a fairly conventional progressive in the mold of Woodrow Wilson; another ends-justify-the-means president who isn’t above flaming the worst instincts in the populace if it benefits the promotion of his political agenda. But I also can’t help but to take a swipe at Republicans here.

You know what makes Republican cries of overreach ring hollow? Maybe because your guy did it over the howls of the left during the last Administration? I would be the first to agree that Bush’s crimes with executive overreach pale in comparison to Obama’s, but Bush set the stage. You reap what you sow. I’m deeply angry at the Obama surveillance state, but it was Bush who laid the foundation for it. Let’s not kid ourselves.

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:38 pm**

Here is a reminder of yet another climate change horror to worry about ... kind of makes the CO2 stuff pale in comparison. So, for all you AGW supporters, how much money do you think we should spend to avert this disaster? Should we petition dear follower to start pumping up a frenzy on this from his teleprompters?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... more-19524

... Mountaineer

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 1:42 pm**

Mountaineer wrote: Here is a reminder of yet another climate change horror to worry about ... kind of makes the CO2 stuff pale in comparison. So, for all you AGW supporters, how much money do you think we should spend to avert this disaster? Should we petition dear follower to start pumping up a frenzy on this from his teleprompters?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/ ... more-19524

... Mountaineer

If this is a risk, we should be diverting resources towards preparing to handle the aftermath, as well. By "we," I mean both governments and individuals.

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:22 pm**

Mountaineer wrote: For those of you who are staunch supporters of AGW, let's assume that AGW is really a proven truth so we can move a bit further down the road. And, perhaps it will help assure that we avoid the trap of "Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided By Politics and Religion has a nice bit which speaks to the discussion we are having regarding discounting the validity of a science when we disagree with the findings" that TennPaGa described earlier. Maybe we can get out of the realm of hand waving into the realm of specifics and a clearer basis for opinion when facts are not available. Facts, just the facts mam, as Sergeant Joe Friday would say.

What are the consequences of AGW? Be specific and list each beneficial or undesirable consequence (call them scenario a., b. c., etc. - see below for examples *) and document the basis for that consequence (e.g. some type of scientific proof, or at least some authorative opinion and destinguish between proof or opinion). Then for each scenario (a., b., c., etc.) list your understanding of this line of reasoning that I described several pages back:

Is it possible for that scenario to happen? Why do you think so?

What is the probability for that scenario to happen? How is that probability determined?

What are the consequences, desirable and undesirable, if the scenario happens?

If the scenario happens, do we know how to influence it before hand to a more desirable outcome?

What is the cost in terms of capital and effort to influence that desirable outcome?

Where will that capital and effort come from to provide that influence?

What is the lost opportunity cost for other desirable endeavors if we divert resources to pursue better understanding of this scenario?

Considering all the above, state a cost-benefit analysis and develop a plan to move forward?

How do you propose to obtain buy-in to the plan?

Examples of possible scenarios - please use your own, i.e. what are you concerned about due to AGW

* Global ocean levels rise 1 foot within the next 50 years.
* 15% increase in plant food sources by 2040 due to increased CO2
* 20% increase in asthma cases by 2025
* Asthma medical research funds increase by 300% by 2030
* Coal sourced electrical generation in US stops by 2025
* Atmospheric CO2 levels unexpectedly revert to 50 ppm by 2050

... Mountaineer

I'm waiting to hear from you guys on what you have to say. I'm really not being sarcastic on this, I'd like to know what the root causes for your personal concerns are and I proposed a way to bore down to the fundamental concerns. My training basically says ask "why" five times and you will get close to the root cause. Maybe we can go forward if we get past the hand waving stage of "Ain't it awful the world will end because of AGW". If not, just say you are not interested in specifics and we can move on.

... Mountaineer

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:35 pm**

No, he is going to create a false issue and use it to collect money to fund his own political party. Nothing new here so move along.

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 7:50 pm**

Reub wrote: No, he is going to create a false issue and use it to collect money to fund his own political party. Nothing new here so move along.

I hope so, but if you do stuff which ain't exactly legal, and you keep doing it and no one does anything to stop you, why in the world would you stop and not just keep doing things you want? In any case, we'll know soon.

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:29 pm**

It actually is a clever ruse by the man. It raises funds for his political party and friends and at the same time helps innoculate him from impeachment proceedings whenever he violates the Constitution, which I predict he will do much more of in the near future. This is why I don't believe that he is inept, as Jimmy Carter was. He is flat out dangerous. I pray that this country survives his presidency!

Posted: **Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:58 pm**

That is a great picture of Cheney. But I dunno, don't forget that this is the guy he's fighting:

[img width=400]http://pearlsofprofundity.files.wordpre ... vil-2a.jpg[/img]

Gyroscopic Investing

Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

BACK TO THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?

Re: Why do conservatives hate Obama so?