Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (25217)	9/10/2009 3:39:25 PM
From: Maurice Winn	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36918

Sunspots going away [gone already]: science.nasa.gov It would be interesting to know how well Hansen's computer predicted that in his spherical cow model. Mqurice

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (25217)	9/16/2009 10:26:42 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36918

The models you want to believe predicted hurricanes [none] warming [none] Antractic melting [none = the opposite] and sea level rise [20cm expected in 100 years big deal]. What's the problem? So even if we believe them, though I have explained why we shouldn't, reality has shown their models to be bung, or at worst the result is trivial. Do you really think a 30cm sea level rise in 100 years is worth enormous cost now? There is net present value accounting to model such things since you like models. Peer review saying "Oh, excellent paper. Absolutely spiffing old chap." is not as good as the review which matters, which is what reality actually does. The models said it would be warmer. It isn't. There has been cooling since 1998. Anyway, you had obviously made your choice before you arrived. Your argument is therefore "I have no idea what's going on but I believe the High Priests". That's what people normally do. It's a great means of making money from the suckers and getting to be the boss - the process is as old as the hills. There is always someone trying it on. Here's another useful test; who benefits? If I'm right, I don't make any money from it if everyone goes along with my thinking, other than the world is a better place so I benefit indirectly through avoiding glaciation, plants growing faster and requiring less water so food more plentiful and cheaper. If I'm wrong and we go down the gurgler, I'm going to be really unhappy about that. No benefit to me. If Al Gore is wrong, he still gets to be Mr Big, make lots of money, strut around being important. If he's right, the CO2 reductions they are discussing won't make any difference anyway and China and India plan to ignore CO2 emissions. That's the old tragedy of the commons problem. But he still gets to be a Big Shot. I have a very low carbon footprint, so it's not going to be a problem for me if huge carbon taxes are introduced. I recommended those quarter of a century ago with reductions in other taxes. Carbon taxes and tariffs on goods from Tragedy of of the Commons Countries who don't tax carbon would do a better job than the cap and trade rorts where friends in high places get a good deal ... unfinished post, but for what it's worth.... Mqurice