Gyroscopic Investing

I just read lately that a French foreign minister said we have only 500 days left to do something about global warming before it's too late (and that was over a week ago so we're down to less than 493 days and counting). Also, both John Kerry and Obama are making a lot of noise about the urgency to do something NOW.

So who should pay for whatever the thing is we're supposed to do NOW? Wouldn't the most fair thing be for those who caused the problem to be charged with solving it? And who would that be? Didn't the wealth we have accumulated in our 401k's leave a large carbon footprint of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere?

I don't believe a word of what I just said but if, instead of an exceptionally cold winter like the one we just had, we had a very warm one followed by enough record heatwaves this summer,  rhetoric like this from the mouths of politicians wouldn't surprise me at all.

ns3 wrote: I just read lately that a French foreign minister said we have only 500 days left to do something about global warming before it's too late (and that was over a week ago so we're down to less than 493 days and counting). Also, both John Kerry and Obama are making a lot of noise about the urgency to do something NOW.

So who should pay for whatever the thing is we're supposed to do NOW? Wouldn't the most fair thing be for those who caused the problem to be charged with solving it? And who would that be? Didn't the wealth we have accumulated in our 401k's leave a large carbon footprint of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere?

I don't believe a word of what I just said but if, instead of an exceptionally cold winter like the one we just had, we had a very warm one followed by enough record heatwaves this summer,  rhetoric like this from the mouths of politicians wouldn't surprise me at all.

I would like to see all the people who are "hollering" the loudest that global cooling/global warming/climate change (terminology dependent on which decade the hysteria is originating from) is a serious problem pay whatever they wish and leave the rest of us alone (financially and rhetoric).  Let them be saviors of the world and they can have all the credit for coughing up their hard earned money.

Mountaineer wrote:

ns3 wrote: I just read lately that a French foreign minister said we have only 500 days left to do something about global warming before it's too late (and that was over a week ago so we're down to less than 493 days and counting). Also, both John Kerry and Obama are making a lot of noise about the urgency to do something NOW.

So who should pay for whatever the thing is we're supposed to do NOW? Wouldn't the most fair thing be for those who caused the problem to be charged with solving it? And who would that be? Didn't the wealth we have accumulated in our 401k's leave a large carbon footprint of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere?

I don't believe a word of what I just said but if, instead of an exceptionally cold winter like the one we just had, we had a very warm one followed by enough record heatwaves this summer,  rhetoric like this from the mouths of politicians wouldn't surprise me at all.

I would like to see all the people who are "hollering" the loudest that global cooling/global warming/climate change (terminology dependent on which decade the hysteria is originating from) is a serious problem pay whatever they wish and leave the rest of us alone (financially and rhetoric).  Let them be saviors of the world and they can have all the credit for coughing up their hard earned money.

Funny... I'd rather see polluters pay for externalities rather than those who identify the externalities as existing.

Not saying with 100% certainty we have man-made climate change, but if we do, the advocates for policy change shouldn't have to bankrupt themselves as martyrs to their cause.

ns3 wrote: I just read lately that a French foreign minister said we have only 500 days left to do something about global warming before it's too late (and that was over a week ago so we're down to less than 493 days and counting). Also, both John Kerry and Obama are making a lot of noise about the urgency to do something NOW.

Interesting that it was such a nice, round number.  I didn't realize Nature worked that way, or that it spoke to powerful politicians so unambiguously!

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

ns3 wrote: I just read lately that a French foreign minister said we have only 500 days left to do something about global warming before it's too late (and that was over a week ago so we're down to less than 493 days and counting). Also, both John Kerry and Obama are making a lot of noise about the urgency to do something NOW.

So who should pay for whatever the thing is we're supposed to do NOW? Wouldn't the most fair thing be for those who caused the problem to be charged with solving it? And who would that be? Didn't the wealth we have accumulated in our 401k's leave a large carbon footprint of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere?

I don't believe a word of what I just said but if, instead of an exceptionally cold winter like the one we just had, we had a very warm one followed by enough record heatwaves this summer,  rhetoric like this from the mouths of politicians wouldn't surprise me at all.

I would like to see all the people who are "hollering" the loudest that global cooling/global warming/climate change (terminology dependent on which decade the hysteria is originating from) is a serious problem pay whatever they wish and leave the rest of us alone (financially and rhetoric).  Let them be saviors of the world and they can have all the credit for coughing up their hard earned money.

Funny... I'd rather see polluters pay for externalities rather than those who identify the externalities as existing.

Not saying with 100% certainty we have man-made climate change, but if we do, the advocates for policy change shouldn't have to bankrupt themselves as martyrs to their cause.

It appears you have a pressuposition that today's polluters are the major cause of destroying the world and the US should fund saving the world.  My presupposition is that resources should be use for pragmatic solutions; thus, let the advocates pour their own money into research and let me decide how to use my money - if a realistic problem and realistic solution are identified, I would likely then be more than willing to help fund solutions.  Until then, let the advocates put up or shut up and I will fund helping those with immediate needs such as shelter and food.

My view is not that we should rampantly pollute; we are to be stewards of the creation.  My view is until there is reasonable proof there is a problem that man can reasonably solve, we could better employ all the resources that are currently being wasted; there are lots of people in the world who go to bed hungry.  My perception is the "green advocates" are pursuing a pipe dream (or being used by the political party who wants to get reelected by diverting attention from its mistakes).  Just consider two of the unintended consequences that have happened in the past from "advocates and politicians acting on emotion vs. fact":  ban DDT ---> millions die from malaria; put ethanol in gasoline ---> corn prices rise globally and people starve.

I do agree that the EPA in its early years did a lot of good re. cleaning up the United States air and water and land.  They, as with most any large government organization, then began to be used for political purposes.

... Mountaineer

It's very interesting that I was just throwing out the global warming idea as an example of a justification that might be used to seize some of the money in retirement plans and it sounds like some people might have actually taken it seriously.

Kind of confirms my thinking. If the weather ever starts co-operating better with the global warming alarmists we could be in big trouble, even though I don't believe all the money in our retirement plans will be able to turn down the thermostat by even a small fraction of a degree.

Mountaineer wrote:

ns3 wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: So its not about which party is in power, its the whole corrupt system itself.

I would agree that we can get screwed equally by either party but I think the worse situation of all is when one party has complete control of the government. This doesn't usually last long but they can do a lot of damage in the meantime. I might be mistaken but I think your example of the prescription drug plan was just such a case, not to mention No Child Left Behind.

Yes indeed!  The real question for us to ponder:  Do we, citizens of the US, receive more "good" from our corrupt government than other reasonable and practical alternatives?

... Mountaineer

I can't believe there is actually anyone who seriously considers that a question.
I guess I have to get out more.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote:

ns3 wrote: I would agree that we can get screwed equally by either party but I think the worse situation of all is when one party has complete control of the government. This doesn't usually last long but they can do a lot of damage in the meantime. I might be mistaken but I think your example of the prescription drug plan was just such a case, not to mention No Child Left Behind.

Yes indeed!  The real question for us to ponder:  Do we, citizens of the US, receive more "good" from our corrupt government than other reasonable and practical alternatives?

... Mountaineer

I can't believe there is actually anyone who seriously considers that a question.
I guess I have to get out more.

Matthew 7:16-18

For the Biblically inclined......

[quote=Kshartle]Matthew 7:16-18 [/quote]

Well, I am not biblically inclined but I checked the "New International Version" and the King James Version.

"Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?"

"Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?"

King James wins, hands down.  "...grapes of thorns..." and "...figs of thistles..." are way better.  And I am not being facetious.

Mountaineer wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Mountaineer wrote: I would like to see all the people who are "hollering" the loudest that global cooling/global warming/climate change (terminology dependent on which decade the hysteria is originating from) is a serious problem pay whatever they wish and leave the rest of us alone (financially and rhetoric).  Let them be saviors of the world and they can have all the credit for coughing up their hard earned money.

Funny... I'd rather see polluters pay for externalities rather than those who identify the externalities as existing.

Not saying with 100% certainty we have man-made climate change, but if we do, the advocates for policy change shouldn't have to bankrupt themselves as martyrs to their cause.

It appears you have a pressuposition that today's polluters are the major cause of destroying the world and the US should fund saving the world. 

This is a loaded comment.  First off, "destroying the world" could be taken a number of different ways.  I believe that any form of material pollution is destructive in general, and of course, destruction can tip into catastrophe rather than just externalities roaming through our water and air and soil.

Further, I believe that handling the accounting for externalities is a proper role for government, if not one of the MOST proper.  However, while I would have the U.S. pay for its fair share since it's been polluting for longer, by no means do I intend that the world get fixed on our dime.  This is probably going to be a treaty. But if the U.S. is leading in cumulative pollution, IMO, especially as such a economic power, it should lead the drive to account for externalities on a global scale.

My presupposition is that resources should be use for pragmatic solutions; thus, let the advocates pour their own money into research and let me decide how to use my money - if a realistic problem and realistic solution are identified, I would likely then be more than willing to help fund solutions.  Until then, let the advocates put up or shut up and I will fund helping those with immediate needs such as shelter and food.

It will always be quite convenient for polluters to ask others to do all the leg work while they pollute.  It is not really "your money" if it is earned by offloading your pollution onto someone else... that's the whole damn point of accounting for externalities in the first place... because if you don't, resources are being IMPROPERLY allocated otherwise.  We can debate what level of proof should be required for externality recognition and taxation, but just jumping on asking the people wanting to recognize it to pay for it first is ludicrous.  Let's have an adult discussion about it... not one where we act like the scientists trying to warn us that costs need to be accounted for should pay for the costs.

My view is not that we should rampantly pollute; we are to be stewards of the creation.  My view is until there is reasonable proof there is a problem that man can reasonably solve, we could better employ all the resources that are currently being wasted; there are lots of people in the world who go to bed hungry.  My perception is the "green advocates" are pursuing a pipe dream (or being used by the political party who wants to get reelected by diverting attention from its mistakes).  Just consider two of the unintended consequences that have happened in the past from "advocates and politicians acting on emotion vs. fact":  ban DDT ---> millions die from malaria; put ethanol in gasoline ---> corn prices rise globally and people starve.

Well we may be rampantly polluting.  In fact, most scientists think that we are.

Oh, and any movement will get politicized, just as Christianity has.  I'm sure there will be cronyism that enters any federal agency, and the mere idea that ethanol was ever "green" is a joke to begin with, though most actual environmentalists didn't really support it. 

Unintended consequences is exactly why I want action on climate change by governments world-wide.  It is not an excuse not to act simply because it's easier to lecture someone else about unintended consequences than looking at your own behavior and that of 300 million other freedom-loving Americans... or at least the 53% that love freedom .

I'm not saying that we have perfect solutions proposed, yet, but if you are telling climate scientists and "green activists" to foot the bill for your pollution, we're simply not having similar levels of adult conversation.


But anyway, back to the government confiscating our retirement plans to pay carbon taxes .

moda0306 wrote: But anyway, back to the government confiscating our retirement plans to pay carbon taxes .

So, are you for it or against it?

ns3 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: But anyway, back to the government confiscating our retirement plans to pay carbon taxes .

So, are you for it or against it?

I was making a bit of a joke. I'd never advocate that an externality tax be levied on retirement accounts.  It defeats the whole purpose. I would probably favor taxing carbon emissions.

Beyond just having them subject to income tax, I don't really favor any strict rules on retirement accounts. I was being a bit sarcastic towards those with deep fears that they're going to get dictated into oblivion soon. I figured I'd link it up with our climate change hijack. 

moda0306 wrote: I was making a bit of a joke. I'd never advocate that an externality tax be levied on retirement accounts.  It defeats the whole purpose. I would probably favor taxing carbon emissions.

Beyond just having them subject to income tax, I don't really favor any strict rules on retirement accounts. I was being a bit sarcastic towards those with deep fears that they're going to get dictated into oblivion soon. I figured I'd link it up with our climate change hijack.

I was half-joking about it myself when I started the hijack.

I did a Google search and couldn't find anybody proposing the idea yet. This is as close as I came....

2. Check your IRA, 401k or organization’s pension plan to see if it is invested in oil and gas. It is a moral issue to profit off the demise of humanity and planetary life as we know it. Divest as quickly as you can or advocate for divestment. Invest your money in socially responsible funds that invest in renewables.

So maybe it's time for someone to propose a "green" PP?

ns3 wrote:

moda0306 wrote: I was making a bit of a joke. I'd never advocate that an externality tax be levied on retirement accounts.  It defeats the whole purpose. I would probably favor taxing carbon emissions.

Beyond just having them subject to income tax, I don't really favor any strict rules on retirement accounts. I was being a bit sarcastic towards those with deep fears that they're going to get dictated into oblivion soon. I figured I'd link it up with our climate change hijack.

I was half-joking about it myself when I started the hijack.

I did a Google search and couldn't find anybody proposing the idea yet. This is as close as I came....

2. Check your IRA, 401k or organization’s pension plan to see if it is invested in oil and gas. It is a moral issue to profit off the demise of humanity and planetary life as we know it. Divest as quickly as you can or advocate for divestment. Invest your money in socially responsible funds that invest in renewables.

So maybe it's time for someone to propose a "green" PP?

Perhaps the "Permanent Putter" fund.  Dear leader can be the fund manager since he is the leading green a hole in one.

moda0306 wrote: Well we may be rampantly polluting.  In fact, most scientists think that we are.

Oh, and any movement will get politicized, just as Christianity has.  I'm sure there will be cronyism that enters any federal agency, and the mere idea that ethanol was ever "green" is a joke to begin with, though most actual environmentalists didn't really support it. 

Unintended consequences is exactly why I want action on climate change by governments world-wide.  It is not an excuse not to act simply because it's easier to lecture someone else about unintended consequences than looking at your own behavior and that of 300 million other freedom-loving Americans... or at least the 53% that love freedom .

I'm not saying that we have perfect solutions proposed, yet, but if you are telling climate scientists and "green activists" to foot the bill for your pollution, we're simply not having similar levels of adult conversation.


But anyway, back to the government confiscating our retirement plans to pay carbon taxes .

Hint: most people, including scientists, are morons.

An adult conversation would require more than chicken little sky is falling evidence from poorly programmed climate models predicting the future (oh please, who in the hell has ever got future predictions correct?).  Because getting someone to pay for this so-called pollution requires global warming to be anthropocentric, which I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that it is when considering all the factors.  Like the cholesterol hypothesis was (or still is to those profiting), it's just assumed to BE solely for purposes of the agenda, because how will you convince or force others otherwise if the global warming was just the natural consequence of, say, leaving the last ice age?

The Newspeak involved in turning carbon dioxide that is necessary for our oxygen production into a pollutant is really galling.  What about actual pollution that causes global cooling?  Oh, that's verbotim and swept under the rug because it doesn't support the agenda.  No longer is it "global warming" its "climate change".  Was that to allow for the possibility they're flat out wrong and we're going to globally cool instead?  Nawww.

First, present evidence without bias and then we can have an actual conversation.  I've been waiting years.  Worse, now we have whackjobs on the other side, like James Dale Davidson, who is convinced we're in a period of global cooling and won't perceive any evidence to the contrary!

Shoot me, now.

Simonjester wrote: "global warming" "climate change". but the new official name is "climate disruption"... the more vague and unprovable the name makes it...    the better it is for the agenda.

I just read somewhere yesterday that they figured out "global warming" is a more fear-inducing term than the others. It would be hard to revert to it right now after a record cold winter but if there are heat waves and hurricanes this summer don't be surprised if it makes a comeback.

And while we're on the subject....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-31/obama-says-climate-change-growing-threat-to-health.html

As I understand it, these words were spoken by Obama standing outside of a children's Asthma clinic. Expect those clinics to start filling up if we don't do something soon.

MachineGhost wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Well we may be rampantly polluting.  In fact, most scientists think that we are.

Oh, and any movement will get politicized, just as Christianity has.  I'm sure there will be cronyism that enters any federal agency, and the mere idea that ethanol was ever "green" is a joke to begin with, though most actual environmentalists didn't really support it. 

Unintended consequences is exactly why I want action on climate change by governments world-wide.  It is not an excuse not to act simply because it's easier to lecture someone else about unintended consequences than looking at your own behavior and that of 300 million other freedom-loving Americans... or at least the 53% that love freedom .

I'm not saying that we have perfect solutions proposed, yet, but if you are telling climate scientists and "green activists" to foot the bill for your pollution, we're simply not having similar levels of adult conversation.


But anyway, back to the government confiscating our retirement plans to pay carbon taxes .

Hint: most people, including scientists, are morons.

At least we have you to educate scientists and other morons on the truth of the world.

If you don't have much respect for scientists, I'll save you their evidence.  Or at least for another thread.

Simonjester wrote: there are scientists and there are "scientists" who are career employees who have managed to get degrees and jobs in scientific fields with little or no understanding of the broader principals of research or science. separating one from the other without having a (proper) scientist do a complete analysis of there work its results and there methods and opinions would be tough... i just recently completed a college course that studied how to create a research design, and one of the projects was to find and critique a professional, journal published, research paper from the library.... you could have chosen randomly, and pretty much any one you got would be easy to pick to pieces, lots of what passes as science, scientist or scientific ..isn't

not saying they are morons, just that far, far, far fewer than you might expect deserve the respect that some letters after their name gives them..

moda0306 wrote: At least we have you to educate scientists and other morons on the truth of the world.

If you don't have much respect for scientists, I'll save you their evidence.  Or at least for another thread.

I have respect for science, not groupthink, career unrisk, political agendas, popularism, etc..  Take that all out, and the remaining science doesn't hold up.  Believing in the Light Bulb being Purple Colored does not make it exist just by virture of fiat.  Keep in mind I'm referring to the anthropocentric cause of, not global warming per se.

Do you still believe in the Cholesterol Hypothesis?  Because the same agenda that kept that profitable fiction going for decades is at play in "climate change".  A consensus opinion of cronyists is not science.  It's a huck and a bamboozle.

Remember, in science you prove a hypothesis is true by attempting to falsify it.  If it passes that test, then it can become a theory that is self-evident to all.  Short-circuiting the scientific process by politics or intentional ignorance is not science.