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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (935162)	5/15/2016 11:31:04 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574709

No Tim. Number 2) is not false. Your claim that it isn't true is false. I figured there was a decent chance that you meant that, but you didn't say that. OTOH I didn't claim it wasn't true. I only claimed that the combination of all the points wasn't true. I don't think it can reasonably be said that it isn't true, there isn't the evidence for that. But I would also say that 2, which also includes 1 the way it was worded, can't simply be said to be true either. That statement would be that the world has warmed, is warming, and will warm, and all 3 of those are overwhelmingly (not just partially, or even mostly) because of human emissions of greenhouse gases. It couldn't be said to simply be true because past warming was obviously for multiple reasons (and much of it occurred before significant human emissions of CO2), present warming isn't really solidly establish (I'd say the present trend is for warming, but over a shorter period, there seems to be a pause in the trend, still shorter and its just noise, present in this context isn't well defined because obviously it can't mean right at this second). But 2 isn't an unreasonable thing to think. What really isn't established is 4, 5 and 6. Now for 6), is your argument that unless it can be done at no cost at all, it isn't worth doing? Nothing I posted remotely resembled such an idea, or hinted at it in any way. You should be able to recognize the difference between "any cost at all" and "global economic catastrophe". The available evidence is that the cost will be massive if your talking about rapid and sustained cuts. 70 percent plus cuts in a generation or two would be at least massive, and quite likely amount to a catastrophe worse then the warming its trying to prevent. Keeping total emissions static or even small cuts might be reasonably doable, expensive, but unlikely to be "massively expensive" compared to the scale of the world economy (even if such dollar figures would normally get that label), and very unlikely to be catastrophic. That brings us to the other point in part 6. - Cost Effective - The cost don't need to be a disaster in order to want to avoid them if the benefit isn't all that large.

To: combjelly who wrote (935162)	5/16/2016 12:48:48 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574709

...consider an estimate of the cost of waiting by William Nordhaus, an economist who has specialized in climate issues. In the course of a piece arguing for immediate action against climate change, he reported his estimate of how much greater the cost of climate change would be if we waited fifty years to deal with it instead of taking the optimal action at once. The number was $4.1 trillion. He took that as an argument for action, writing that "Wars have been started over smaller sums." As I pointed out in a post here responding to Nordhaus, the cost is spread over the entire world and a long period of time. Annualized, it comes to something under .1% of world GNP. daviddfriedman.blogspot.com CAGW and Consensus Some years ago, Richard Tol published an article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives that pooled the work of everyone in the field to produce estimates of the net effect of various levels of warming, measured relative to pre-industrial temperatures. It included a graph showing estimated net cost, with an error range. The green lines show his results after correcting some errors in the original paper. The solid green line shows the estimate. It is positive up to about two degrees, negative thereafter. The dashed lines are the boundaries of the 95% range. The high end (optimistic) does not go negative until 3°C. What about the low end? At 3°C, the welfare impact is a reduction of 10%. The IPCC high emissions scenario, RCP8.5, which gets us to that temperature sometime in the second half of the century, assumes continued economic growth. If so, the 10% reduction in welfare due to AGW will be combined with an increase several times that large. My previous post discussed an article in the Journal of the National Academy of Sciences which criticized the IPCC models and concluded that warming due to AGW had been reasonably stable for the past century at a little less than one degree/century. If that continues, by 2100 global temperature will be less than two degrees above its preindustrial level. On Tol's estimate, we will be better off than if there had been no AGW, worse off than if AGW had been a little slower. If, on the other hand, we accept RCP8.5, when we reach the 3° mark we will be worse off than if warming had not occurred, better off than we are now—even if we take the low end of Tol's predicted range of effects. Which I think is an adequate response to people who tell me that to deny catastrophic effects of warming is to ignore the scientific consensus. daviddfriedman.blogspot.com

To: combjelly who wrote (935162)	5/16/2016 11:02:09 AM
From: locogringo	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB jlallen Respond to of 1574709

Target is just as STUPID as you grubered morons on this thread: Target´s market cap down $6 billion since start of transgender bathroom policy After announcing on April 19 that it "welcome[s] transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity," Target faced an instant and broad public backlash (snip) Since late February, Target´s market cap had been steadily increasing, reaching a peak of $50.39 billion on April 19 -- the day the transgender policy was announced -- which was its highest value since mid-August 2015. Immediately after the release of the transgender policy, the bottom has fallen out of Target´s market cap. As of close on Friday, it stood at just $44.33 billion, down six billion dollars (or more than 12% of its value) from the start of the open bathroom policy. <more idiocy> Original Article