Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote: The science of CO2 and the greenhouse effect are pretty ironclad. It is almost like trying to refute gravity.

A consensus isn't the same thing as factual proof and causation though.  There is (or was?) a consensus that high cholesterol causes heart disease, even though direct causation has been lacking since the 50's.  Part of the problem is science has become overpoliticalized with ass-kissing for government grants, so a lot of fraud, bias and sloppyness has crept in over time.  Complex answers get lost in the rush of sound bites and making a profit.

There's no doubt global warming appears to be occuring.  I haven't seen any irrefutable evidence that it is anthropogenic relative to alternative explanations once real world effects, GIGO (especially) & biases are controlled for.  It is fashionable for the Watermelon/Democrat crowd to be anti-technological, so of course they will go all ape shit for that explanation, as opposed to climate cycles, Gamma Ray radiation, etc..  And yet, if somehow we ceased all anthropogenic greenhouse gases immediately, it would have very little effect on the global warming.  This incongruency doesn't seem to bother anyone profiting from the hysteria.

I'll remain an anthropogenic non-commital until I see ironclad evidence instead of a fad consensus.

MG

MG,

A consensus isn't the same thing as factual proof and causation though.

CO2 causes greenhouse effect. That is factually true and can be reproduced in a lab setting. I think a simple cost-benefit analysis would suggest that the risks of doing nothing potentially outweigh the costs of action. Besides, our present energy infrastructure is unsustainable in the long run (even if you take global warming out of the picture)...it needs to be fixed eventually anyway. Why not do it while energy is still relatively abundant and cheap? Is there a reason for procrastination?

It is fashionable for the Watermelon/Democrat crowd to be anti-technological,

Compared to the other side of the aisle??? Are you kidding me? Who is pushing 21st century tech? If the modern Republican party controlled the technological progress of this nation we would still be using typewriters and riding around in horse buggies..

Part of the problem is science has become overpoliticalized with ass-kissing for government grants, so a lot of fraud, bias and sloppyness has crept in over time.  Complex answers get lost in the rush of sound bites and making a profit.

But we should trust big business lobby? If history is any guide, I'll throw my hat in with the scientists.

doodle wrote:

Global Warming is a sham.

99% of scientists wouldn't agree with you.

Scientists can be as biased as anyone else once funding becomes involved.  I think there would be a lot less funding for Global Warming research if all of the results were negative. 

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the Global Warming hypothesis, but I think for someone to make a credible statement one way or the other they'd have to understand the body of literature that currently exists, and also the conflicts of interest that may sway the results or how they are interpreted.

It is a very complex topic with many variables. 

doodle wrote: Do you distrust scientific consensus in other areas of your life as well?

Absolutely.

Can scientists overstate the importance of their research to qualify for funding? Absolutely!

Do scientists en masse intentionally fudge data and manipulate results to push an agenda? Not likely to happen industry wide. Those that do fudge and manipulate data don't last long.  Scientists in general seek to uncover the truth. Do they get it wrong occasionally by honestly misinterpreting data? Of course. But don't malign the millions of hours of work  of honest truth seekers  based on the malfeasance of a few hucksters.

If you remember all the hoopala a few years back about Climategate you will realize how hard the fossil fuels industry is working to try to discredit science. Religion used similar tactics a few hundred years ago. By the way, not a single shred of damning evidence came out of Climategate.....athough if you watch FOX news you would certainly believe otherwise.

So, is science always right? No.... But until society figures out another way to understand the world around us than to highly train people to study and interpret empirical data, I think it is foolish to discard the overwhelming scientific consensus because it just doesn't "feel" right to you. The debate on climate change has happened in the scientific community already and they have formulated a conclusion. I for one think it the height of absurdity for a bunch of lay people to blithely discard it.

Here are a few questions to the climate change doubters on this board....

Are human beings through their actions capable of impacting the environment in a detrimental way?

Does pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 (a proven greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere have zero impact on the earth?

doodle wrote: Do scientists en masse intentionally fudge data and manipulate results to push an agenda?

It's not always intentional.  People can be biased in ways that they are not even aware of.

doodle wrote: Not likely to happen industry wide.

One need look no further than the pharmaceutical industry to see that this can happen.

doodle wrote:
So, is science always right? No.... But until society figures out another way to understand the world around us than to highly train people to study empirical data', I think it is foolish to discard the overwhelming scientific consensus because it just doesn't "feel" right to you. The debate on climate change has happened in the scientific community already and they have formulated a conclusion. I for one think it the height of absurdity for a bunch of lay people to blithely discard it.

Do you know a lot of climate scientists?  Have they told you conclusively that Global Warming is a certainty?  I suspect that if you spoke with 10 different climate scientists, you'd get 10 different opinions on Global Warming.

Again, I'm not discarding the theory, but I will admit that I don't' like the Global Warming discussion in general.

I think it is a distraction from the real more obvious environmental problems we have right now, the biggest one being that our current economic system that basically says, "grow, grow, grow," is not sustainable environmentally, and not because of Global Warming, but simply because of resource depletion and overpopulation.

Here is a question RE global warming:

While global warming may or may not be the effect of the re-introduction of carbon into the atmosphere through the combustion of the naturally sequestered carbon deposited in the form of fossil fuels, isn't a periodic ice age basically a certainty, and wouldn't an ice age for a human population of its current size be just as large a disaster (if not much larger) than global warming and its rise in sea levels, changes in weather, etc.?

Why is no one talking about the ice age that the earth is due for in the next few hundred years?

 I suspect that if you spoke with 10 different climate scientists, you'd get 10 different opinions on Global Warming.

That is what the campaign on misinformation that the fossil fuels lobby would like you to believe. Why attack the science, when all you have to do is create confusion and doubt in the mind of the public.

doodle wrote:

 I suspect that if you spoke with 10 different climate scientists, you'd get 10 different opinions on Global Warming.

That is what the campaign on misinformation that the fossil fuels lobby would like you to believe. Why attack the science, when all you have to do is create confusion and doubt in the mind of the public.

doodle,

Aren't you proceeding as if your position is factually correct and the contrary position is factually wrong?

How can that be the basis for a real discussion, especially when we are talking about something that has no precedent and which revolves entirely around a theory?

Medium Tex, when for you does a fact become a fact?

stone wrote: Medium Tex, when for you does a fact become a fact?

When people who disagree on the conclusions that can be drawn from that fact nevertheless agree on the fact.

Is it a fact that atmospheric co2 is a key factor in regulating the temperature of our planet?

doodle wrote: Is it a fact that atmospheric co2 is a key factor in regulating the temperature of our planet?

I think it is, but I don't know for sure. 

If it is a key factor, I don't know what role it plays when compared to a near infinite number of other variables (among them the periodic ice age question).

I think it is, but I don't know for sure.

Isn't that why we have fantastic scientific universities and foundations full of people who have been trained to try to find out the answer to this? When 99% of them are in agreement why should we still doubt?

Sure, science can get things wrong. And if they do, they will change their conclusions. It has certainly happened in the past. But regardless of whether global warming exists or not, our planets energy infrastructure is dependent on a non renewable resource that at the very least has negative health impacts on people. So no matter what the outcome on the global warming question is, we need to transition to cleaner, sustainable energy.

doodle wrote:

I think it is, but I don't know for sure.

Isn't that why we have fantastic scientific universities and foundations full of people who have been trained to try to find out the answer to this? When 99% of them are in agreement why should we still doubt?

Sure, science can get things wrong. And if they do, they will change their conclusions. It has certainly happened in the past. But regardless of whether global warming exists or not, our planets energy infrastructure is dependent on a non renewable resource that at the very least has negative health impacts on people. So no matter what the outcome on the global warming question is, we need to transition to cleaner, sustainable energy.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman 

Medium Tex, I thought ice ages did fit in with CO2 levels. Are there really examples of ice ages when CO2 levels were high?

About facts, don't you always get flat earth types who won't believe any fact?

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman  

Then where are all the scientific articles debunking the myth of climate change?

I guess we should rely on FOX news and Rush Limbaugh for the real scientific truth....


or maybe we should just defer to the scientists at Exxon Mobil...oh wait they even agree that global warming exists....

doodle wrote:

I think it is, but I don't know for sure.

Isn't that why we have fantastic scientific universities and foundations full of people who have been trained to try to find out the answer to this? When 99% of them are in agreement why should we still doubt?

Sure, science can get things wrong. And if they do, they will change their conclusions. It has certainly happened in the past. But regardless of whether global warming exists or not, our planets energy infrastructure is dependent on a non renewable resource that at the very least has negative health impacts on people. So no matter what the outcome on the global warming question is, we need to transition to cleaner, sustainable energy.

Your post sounds like global warming is a pretext for an outcome that you already favored.

I am in complete agreement with the idea that burning fossil fuels as fast as we can extract them from the earth isn't much of a plan for the future, but it seems like the global warming discussion gets distracted and distorted when it turns into a general anti-pollution discussion.

I guess we will never be sure of fossil fuels causing global warming even if we all burn up from global warming after having found some incredible new oil reserve. The point to me is what have we got to loose by developing renewables?

doodle wrote: Isn't that why we have fantastic scientific universities and foundations full of people who have been trained to try to find out the answer to this? When 99% of them are in agreement why should we still doubt?

I suspect science is like any other profession.  There are a few practitioners who are really good and a few who are really bad, but most are just mediocre.  

Many of our greatest scientific discoveries were made by scientists who had ideas that were dissenting from the rest of the scientific community.  Many of them were ridiculed by the scientific community, sometimes for their entire careers.  

I don't have that much more faith in the larger scientific community than I do the financial advisor community.  People are people, regardless of profession.  

doodle wrote:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman 

Then where are all the scientific articles debunking the myth of climate change?

I think that the sense some people have is that the climate is always changing.  The question is whether humans are accelerating the process of this change and what the actual effects of this change are going to be.

If, for example, you knew for certain that it was only by burning fossil fuels as quickly as we could that we would be able to avert a catastrophic ice age that would kill 99% of the people on the earth, how would you feel about global warming then?

MT,

You're right. Global warming gets people distracted from the pressing reality that we are burning through nonrenewable energy resources without a plan for their replacement.

My post was more directed at the disrespect that many members of the political right have towards the scientific community. I see great parallels between this and other instances throughout history (the dark ages) where scientific inquiry was maligned by those in power.

If, for example, you knew for certain that it was only by burning fossil fuels as quickly as we could that we would be able to avert a catastrophic ice age that would kill 99% of the people on the earth, how would you feel about global warming then?

Well, if 99% of scientists said it was necessary to avert disaster and the research was backed up my multigenerational studies I would defer to the experts. What other course of action is there.... collective prayer?

I also think it is important to look at the potential ramifications of doing nothing versus the cost of acting.

Isn't renewable energy just a fat tail minimization strategy?

doodle wrote: My post was more directed at the disrespect that many members of the political right have towards the scientific community. I see great parallels between this and other instances throughout history (the dark ages) where scientific inquiry was maligned by those in power.

Does the scientific community respect the political right?  It seems like you have a sort of mutual disrespect going on there.

You have to follow the global warming argument all the way to its conclusion to understand why much of the politicial right will never accept it, no matter what evidence they are presented in its favor.

Read the article from Naomi Klein below and you will see what I am talking about:

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497 ... vs-climate

I am not offering Klein's arguments as evidence of the truth of the global warming theory, but rather as a suggestion of what the expected response from climate change deniers would be even if presented with overwhelming evidence as to its truth.