Gyroscopic Investing

I used to be very religious and when I heard alarmist talk of global warming - now known as "climate change" I would think of this verse from the Bible in Genesis 8:23 - A direct quote from God if you believe in that sort of thing...

"While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease."

I don't have the faith in God I once had but I have even less faith in humans - Even if they win Nobel prizes like Gore and Obama.

The whole shift from "global warming" to "climate change" makes it very apparent that I'm being marketed to, and also that the watermelons are setting things up so that any event can be taken as "proof" of their contention.

Xan wrote: The whole shift from "global warming" to "climate change" makes it very apparent that I'm being marketed to, and also that the watermelons are setting things up so that any event can be taken as "proof" of their contention.

The time is short to do anything about this. Yes, there are only a few years left and it will be too late to do any thing.

Buy this car today because it won't be on sale tomorrow. This is the very last day. As of midnight.

You have hit the nail exactly on the head in plain English. We are being marketed to. Some (but not all) of us weren't born yesterday.

notsheigetz wrote:

Xan wrote: The whole shift from "global warming" to "climate change" makes it very apparent that I'm being marketed to, and also that the watermelons are setting things up so that any event can be taken as "proof" of their contention.

The time is short to do anything about this. Yes, there are only a few years left and it will be too late to do any thing.

Buy this car today because it won't be on sale tomorrow. This is the very last day.

You have hit the nail on the head in plain English. We are being marketed to. Some (but not all) of us weren't born yesterday.

As long as you think of climate change as mostly entertainment, you'll be fine.  It's a lot like peak oil, politics, and the evening news.  It's just noise to get people worked up, even though there is virtually nothing that an individual person can do about any of those problems other than fret.

It's when you start taking this stuff seriously that you can get a little freaked out.

Imagine going to a horror movie and thinking it meant that someone was going to attack you with an axe in the parking lot.  That would spoil all the fun of the entertainment that the movie was designed to provide.

doodle wrote:I'm surprised that more people here don't find the idea of hedging our bets for the future an intelligent path to take.

There are only so many bets that can be hedged.  Climate change, pandemics, asteroids, Lindsay Lohan...  It is a long list.

When someone can explain to me how we raised the sea level from 400 FEET lower to what we have now in a geologic blink of an eye, I'll consider hedging that climate bet.

Clearly, I think, modeling and understanding climate is far, far more complicated than understanding economic systems and investments.  Why would we expect predictions about climate change, or the underlying causes, to be any more accurate than those of hedge fund gurus?

Harry Browne would say, I think, that the future is unknowable.  As is future climate.  It will change.  Always has, always will.

moda0306 wrote: Is that to say that you think we should wait for said degree of proof before having our governments act on global warming (taxing externalities, etc, etc)?  If so, I'd ask for the same degree of proof that land is naturally private property and is therefore subject to legitimate deeding and enforcement by government .

The devil is in the details.  If the shitheels in DC are going to tax, restrict and/or control us in the belief that global warming is arthropogenic without quantifiable proof despite all of the other possible explanations like gamma radiation, then in 100 years it will all have been for naught at a cost of losing even more of our precious freedoms.  Given the dismal track record of statist freaks taking over "government" to social engineer Utopia, it's almost a sure bet that will indeed be the outcome.

Now, the shitheels in DC dealing with the consequences of global warming is an entirely different matter.  That seems quite objective to me.  But a carbon tax or cap and trade with widespread social repurcussions in driving up costs of living?  Need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not agendas, propaganda or glad handling.

As far as private property goes, the proof of its superiorness has evolved over centuries of real world application.  I don't see why you have such an contentious issue with the concept.  The "free market" idea or need arises first, rationalization comes second, terrorist bureaucrat intervention comes third ("deeds"), then corruption comes last.

doodle wrote: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/

I'm surprised that more people here don't find the idea of hedging our bets for the future an intelligent path to take.

I found that site to be propaganda referring to propaganda as "proof".  Its not what I would consider objective, quantifiable evidence.  But maybe I'm missing something.

Lack of interest in hedging is because the costs of certain kinds of compliance is enormous given the minimal benefit if wrong.  Everything is subject to a cost-benefit, risk-analysis.  Global warming exists, so it would be far more productive acting like the Dutch with their dams, dykes and levees than trying to control cows from farting or modifying the galaxy.  It's all typical hubris until there is irrefutable proof.

WildAboutHarry wrote: Clearly, I think, modeling and understanding climate is far, far more complicated than understanding economic systems and investments.  Why would we expect predictions about climate change, or the underlying causes, to be any more accurate than those of hedge fund gurus?

+1

Maybe this is the issue here...reminds me a bit of Jared Diamonds book collapse and the question "Are we culturally able to address the environmental issues that will determine our survival?"

The basic gist is this:  The idea is, we begin by absorbing the values of our tribes — what is and isn’t important, what is and isn’t a risk — and use whatever numeracy and scientific literacy we possess to seek out facts and arguments that support those views. Getting smarter, in other words, only makes us better at justifying our own worldviews. It does not necessarily give us more scientifically accurate worldviews


More science won’t help. Why is skepticism about climate change so persistent?

The answer might seem to be obvious: ignorance! People just don’t understand the science. Their education has not equipped them to discern good evidence from bad, or reason properly to valid conclusions. The media is not giving them the facts. They need more, better information and improved reasoning skills.

However intuitively plausible this answer might be, it suffers from one important flaw: It is wrong. Better educated people are not less likely to be skeptics. Greater scientific literacy and reasoning ability do not incline people toward climate realism. Where skepticism exists, additional information and arguments only serve to reinforce it.

This has been evident for some time, but a fascinating new study in Nature backs it up with numbers. Yale researcher Dan Kahan and his colleagues tested the question directly: Is it true that greater numeracy and scientific literacy reduce polarization about climate science?

Kahan found that, among those with low scientific literacy, assessment of climate risk was high among “egalitarian communitarians”? (those with a worldview “favoring less regimented forms of social organization and greater collective attention to individual needs”?) and low among “hierarchical individualists”? (those with a worldview “that ties authority to conspicuous social rankings and eschews collective interference with the decisions of individuals possessing such authority”?).

So what happens as scientific literacy increases? The naive view — what Kahan calls the “science comprehension thesis,”? or SCT — predicts that hierarchical individualists with high scientific literacy will more accurately perceive the risk and converge with egalitarian communitarians. But that’s not what happens. As science literacy and numeracy increase, polarization rises. Well-educated, carefully reasoning hierarchical individualists are less convinced of the danger of climate change.

What explains this? Here is Kahan’s alternative to SCT:

The alternative explanation can be referred to as the cultural cognition thesis (CCT). CCT posits that individuals, as a result of a complex of psychological mechanisms, tend to form perceptions of societal risks that cohere with values characteristic of groups with which they identify. Whereas SCT emphasizes a conflict between scientists and the public, CCT stresses one between different segments of the public, whose members are motivated to fit their interpretations of scientific evidence to their competing cultural philosophies.

The operative concept here is “motivated reasoning.”? The idea is, we begin by absorbing the values of our tribes — what is and isn’t important, what is and isn’t a risk — and use whatever numeracy and scientific literacy we possess to seek out facts and arguments that support those views. Getting smarter, in other words, only makes us better at justifying our own worldviews. It does not necessarily give us more scientifically accurate worldviews.

Kahan’s alternative, needless to say, predicts survey answers better than SCT. It follows pretty straightforwardly that SCT is wrong and that educating people on science and reasoning will only reinforce the partisan divide on climate. This much, it seems to me, is beyond serious doubt. SCT is dead. Insofar as people still hold the naive view — and many (most?) still do, explicitly or implicitly — they should let it go once and for all. More and better science is not the answer, at least not a complete answer. If the partisan divide on climate is to be “solved,”? it must be solved directly, on the level of worldviews, not by the indirect route of scientific education.

How might that be done? Kahan gestures at an answer:

As citizens understandably tend to conform their beliefs about societal risk to beliefs that predominate among their peers, communicators should endeavor to create a deliberative climate in which accepting the best available science does not threaten any group’s values. Effective strategies include use of culturally diverse communicators, whose affinity with different communities enhances their credibility, and information-framing techniques that invest policy solutions with resonances congenial to diverse groups. Perfecting such techniques through a new science of science communication is a public good of singular importance. [my emphasis]

This can be crudely summed up as, “to change conservatives’ minds on climate, get other conservatives to talk to them in a language they understand.”?

Which is great, as far as it goes. But in my humble opinion, it doesn’t go very far. In fact, this is the juncture in these kind of discussions where the hand-waving often begins. There’s a rather heroic assumption being made: that it is possible to make an accurate understanding of climate change congenial to hierarchical individualist values. Is that so? That is the question I shall ponder in my next post.

doodle wrote:Greater scientific literacy and reasoning ability do not incline people toward climate realism. Where skepticism exists, additional information and arguments only serve to reinforce it.

Huh?

So we should just let the climate change "Morlocks" minister to us "Eloi" masses?  Skepticism is a fundamental basis of science.

Wikipedia wrote:The phlogiston theory, first stated in 1667 by Johann Joachim Becher, is an obsolete scientific theory that postulated the existence of a fire-like element called "phlogiston", which was contained within combustible bodies and released during combustion. The theory was an attempt to explain processes of burning such as combustion and the rusting of metals, which are now collectively known as oxidation.

How could the skeptics ignore the phlogiston realism?

No, we should look at the best available science and shape a policy from that. Right now 99 percent of scientists think this is a major problem. You are completely discounting 99 percent of scientists and saying there is no reason to do ANYTHING. Would you take a similar approach if 99 out of 100 doctors told you you had cancer? I am saying lets take reasonable steps to address issues that science indicate might be a problem. I am not saying we need to throw our planet back into the stone ages.

You take reasonable precautions in every aspect of your life to avoid negative outcomes based on probabilities. Why should this be any different?

Being against doing anything is the equivalent of holding one asset class. You might be right....but what if you're not?

Doodle,

99% of the very small fraction of scientists who work in this area and whose grant funding and university positions depend on following a certain orthodoxy, perhaps.  The comments about marketing from previous posts (from global warming to climate change) ring very true to me.  Actually -- from global cooling to global warming to climate change.

The earth's climate has shown nothing but change over the past 20,000 years.  Lots and lots of it.  That is apparently the normal condition for the earth.  A 400' change in sea level over a very small fraction of human history and way before the industrial age argues that any climate change we are seeing now may be baked into the system and arguably could simply be part of that natural process.

Wikipedia wrote:A significant event was Meltwater pulse 1A (mwp-1A), when sea level rose approximately 20 m over a 500-year period about 14,200 years ago. This is a rate of about 40 mm/yr. The primary source may have been meltwater from the Antarctic ice sheet, perhaps causing the south-to-north cold pulse marked by the Southern Hemisphere Huelmo/Mascardi Cold Reversal, which preceded the Northern Hemisphere Younger Dryas. Other recent studies suggest a Northern Hemisphere source for the meltwater in the Laurentide ice sheet.

Pretty dramatic, huh?  And note the discussion of the source of the water.  May have come from the southern hemisphere, maybe from the northern hemisphere.  For sure one or the other or both.

What concerns me is not the fact that we have a variable climate but the potential that well-meaning politicians (perhaps a non sequitur) decide to dump a bunch of iron filings into the sea, stimulate massive photosynthesis, drop the CO2 levels and initiate a spate of global cooling.  Which requires some other nostrum to generate warming.  Rinse and repeat.

What concerns me is not the fact that we have a variable climate but the potential that well-meaning politicians (perhaps a non sequitur) decide to dump a bunch of iron filings into the sea, stimulate massive photosynthesis, drop the CO2 levels and initiate a spate of global cooling.  Which requires some other nostrum to generate warming.  Rinse and repeat.

uhhhh..but the dumping of millions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere (a known greenhouse gas...or are you going to debate the validity of the idea that the atmosphere plays a role in regulating our planets temperature?) by a capitalist consumer society run amok doesn't concern you in the least? So I guess, you don't believe in basic ideas like "tragedy of the commons"? As long as every individual is free to do as they please everything will turn out just fine?  

99% of the very small fraction of scientists who work in this area and whose grant funding and university positions depend on following a certain orthodoxy, perhaps.

What I am suggesting are reasonable steps to avert a potential risk that 99 percent of climatologists think is serious. I frankly don't give a crap what other scientists think. I don't go to someone who has a Ph.D in English to get opinions on my prostate, why would I give enormous weight to what a scientist from another field thinks about the climate? In addition, I find it absurd that with all the money floating around looking for a group of hard scientists to discredit global warming (paying a lot more than a measly grant mind you) you still don't have any strong dissenting voices regarding the issue.

The earth's climate has shown nothing but change over the past 20,000 years.

No one is is debating whether the Earth's climate changes and will continue to do so. The issue is with the speed that it is taking place. Species need time to adapt. Dramatic climactic shifts are catastrophic...(dinosaurs)....not necessarily climate shifts in and of themselves. A 400' foot rise in oceans would put just about every major city in the world underwater....whether it is part of the natural process or not that would be a devastating event and we would have to tackle such an issue on a global scale to mitigate its effects.

Finally, the burning and procurement of fossil fuels are bad for our health and natural ecosystems. Would you love to have a fracking operation under your well water? Do you want a coal fired power plant in your neighborhood? How about your children growing up next to a major highway? Maybe a large oil spill in the water where you eat your fish from sounds nice??? Of course not! The marginal increase in cost from renewables (and if you look at latest numbers the costs are almost reaching parity with traditional fossil fuels) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_el ... _by_source there really is no argument.

With regards to other aspects of our lives, adjustments like improving the energy efficiency of the way we design our houses and buildings, coupled with better city planning to reduce peoples need to use the automobile to get everywhere would go a long way to cutting costs for consumers and reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand where taking reasonable steps to mitigate a potential problem has become such a stumbling block for so many people.

doodle wrote: Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand where taking reasonable steps to mitigate a potential problem has become such a stumbling block for so many people.

Don't conflate actions we can each take at the individual level to mitigate the consequences of global warming with hysteria for political schemes to limit the unproven root cause.  The difference here is in who profits from restricting your freedom.  If the costs of such compliance at the political level were not so expensive and detrimental to living standards, then there would be little to debate.  Remember Al Gore who is heavily invested in the carbon credit industry and produced a misleading movie to profit from it?

Simonjester wrote:
its interesting that the solutions proposed to fix global cooling back at the dawn of the new ice age in the 70's, are almost the word for word identical to the solutions being proposed for the global warming. regardless of your views on global warming or cooling, this should raise some BIG red flags for any who question the motives of the "statist freaks"

doodle wrote:uhhhh..but the dumping of millions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere (a known greenhouse gas...or are you going to debate the validity of the idea that the atmosphere plays a role in regulating our planets temperature?) by a capitalist consumer society run amok doesn't concern you in the least? So I guess, you don't believe in basic ideas like "tragedy of the commons"? As long as every individual is free to do as they please everything will turn out just fine? 

The earth, all by itself, has the capacity to dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.  Volcanos, natural decomposition, etc.  It also has mechanisms to remove that CO2 (photosynthesis being an obvious one).  And rates of photosynthesis are sensitive to CO2 levels.

I don't think it is unreasonable to be more efficient in how we add CO2 to the atmosphere, but I do think it is unreasonable to sh*t can centuries of progress on the basis of a couple of decades of computer modeling.

And where did all of that carbon come from in the first place?  Outer space?  It was on the earth, all along.  Biological organisms (and perhaps some purely physical/chemical processes) made the coal, oil, natural gas, and let's not forget calcium carbonate (limestone).  All of that CO2 had to be in the atmosphere (or dissolved in water) at some point in the past.

doodle wrote:With regards to other aspects of our lives, adjustments like improving the energy efficiency of the way we design our houses and buildings, coupled with better city planning to reduce peoples need to use the automobile to get everywhere would go a long way to cutting costs for consumers and reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

Agree (see above).  Cutting costs and reducing dependency on foreign oil are admirable goals, so long as those costs are balanced against the economic and physical well being of the people being asked to implement those policies. 

Frankly, I'm at a loss to understand where taking reasonable steps to mitigate a potential problem has become such a stumbling block for so many people.

Reasonable people disagree on what constitutes reasonable steps.  Imagine if the global cooling crowd had held sway in the 1960s/1970s.  One solution (which we actually did implement, come to think of it) would have been a massive program to dump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The consequences of doing nothing are probably less than the consequences of being terribly wrong, based on infant science.