Categories

Pragmatic Capitalism

Capital for Living a More Practical Life

Global Warming

« Back to Previous Page
0

I figured it was about time we had a dedicated thread instead of interjected sporadically into other conversations. I was tempted to call it “climate change” in a nod to the leftists, but that’s not the religion based on belief instead of evidence. Here’s a link about the latest scandal, the Pausebuster:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

Closed
Marked as spam
Posted by MachineGhost
Posted on 02/11/2017 6:44 PM
556 views
Private answer

You’re really stirring the pot today, eh? :-)

I’m no scientist, but I have been to Beijing enough times to know that human beings are causing something that is really messed up in the air. Everyone wears a mask and has a hacking cough. It’s horrific. So, people can argue that humans aren’t changing the climate, but that just means you’ve never seen the evidence with your own two eyes.

Now, the question is whether we’re on the verge of some climate catastrophe? I suspect not. But I’d rather prepare for the worst and hope for the best rather than just let capitalists be capitalists and pillage the planet all in the name of profits.

Ironically, capitalism is going to make all of this a moot point in the next 20 years. Fossil fuels might not be going away, but we’re making much faster progress in the alternatives space than anyone could have ever imagined….

Marked as spam
Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
Answered on 02/11/2017 7:10 PM
    Private answer

    The problem isn’t “global warming”. The problem is rising volatility in climate patterns. Going from 60 degrees and sunny to 4 inches of snow in a span of 8 hours isn’t normal. And it’s getting worse everywhere. We’re seeing rapid shifts in climate patterns. We’re seeing new lands being opened up to agriculture and water resources while others get shut off. This means migration patterns will accelerate. Other risks include spreading disease vectors or wars over water.

    The problem is that when we talk about climate change, there’s no real discussion about risks. I wrote about this here.
    http://suvysthoughts.blogspot.com/2016/06/on-climate-change-climate-science.html

    Marked as spam
    Posted by Suvy Boyina
    Answered on 02/12/2017 11:21 AM
      Private answer

      Yeah, I’m in a real stir the pot mood lately! But I’d like more nuanced discussion on “global warming” because that one really brings out the polarized extremists compared to other politically sensitive topics.

      So it seems that the IPCC has at least acknowledged there’s been no meaningful global warming since 2000 in their 2013 report. OTOH, we have political organizations like NOAA doctoring data to make it appear otherwise. Ooopsie! That really should not be a surprise to anyone but the True Believers on the left (virtually all whom are Millennials without worldy. post-extended adolescence experience, including how politics actually operates, so we can cut them some slack here).

      So I’m with Suvy on this. The real risk is not that we know for sure what is going to happen i.e. global warming, but that we don’t know the unknown unknowns being so narrowly-minded dogmatic about one particular outcome based on purely theoretical models that are so input unstable (and easily manipulated) that they make Markowitz mean-variance optimization look positively robust.

      NASA has finally admitted recently that the sun’s output DOES effect the Earth’s weather. Since the strongest basis for actual climate change is the sun’s flunctuating energy output and not those relatively recent pesky humans and their ilk farting out greenhouse gases, this is actually a big relevation that has gone mostly unnoticed.

      The nice thing about mind-independent facts is that you can’t suppress the functionally objective truth forever. Even if it takes a couple of generations as it did in the ex-Communist countries, truth WILL float the the top and everyone WILL have to come face to face with it in a day of reckoning. Global warming or global cooling, the overall stench is starting to dissipate.

      Marked as spam
      Posted by MachineGhost
      Answered on 02/12/2017 2:34 PM
        Private answer

        The global warming debate reminds me of what my brother-in-law once said concerning weathermen arguing over whether a house was destroyed by straight-line winds or a tornado: “Who cares? The house got destroyed either way.”

        Marked as spam
        Posted by troll
        Answered on 02/12/2017 4:25 PM
          Private answer

          We know that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing dramatically. This can ONLY happen from human activity. We know, as Suvy describes, that there are weather changes occurring worldwide that can ONLY be explained by unhappy changes in our atmosphere.

          Machine sets up a “straw man” claiming humans have not been proven to cause “global warming” which he defines very narrowly (a global increase in temperature on the average) and does not consider the worldwide increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and the effect of THAT. Our former Vice POTUS studied the “greenhouse” effect. This is an increase in energy in the atmosphere caused by more water vapor in the atmosphere. This H2O increase is directly caused by the increase of CO2. The increase in energy/water vapor in the atmosphere will cause a dramatic increase in storms in parts of the world and droughts in others. We already are seeing major changes in the weather patterns due to this very effect.

          The question in my mind is, can we do anything about this going forward? There does not seem to be the “will” nor acceptable methods according to many folks (see MachineGhost and his frequent comments on this issue). The jury is still out on this issue.

          I would suggest that we not build the jury room in a flood plain.

          Marked as spam
          Posted by Dennis
          Answered on 02/12/2017 6:36 PM
            Private answer

            Machine, the FACT is that the rich are NOT paying for Climate Change, the rest of us are:

            FEMA Cuts A Break To Wealthy Beachfront Property Owners And Courts Climate Change Disaster
            John McQuaid , CONTRIBUTOR Forbes, Feb 2014

            Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
            As seas rise, and the storms grow stronger and more volatile, American coastal communities face an existential challenge that most are only starting to recognize. There are many ways to address this. One of them is already in place: the National Flood Insurance Program.

            For years, it was part of the problem. Flood insurance was relatively cheap, and taxpayers effectively underwrote construction, and reconstruction, in some of the nation’s most flood-prone areas. (Private insurers provide disaster coverage for wind damage, not flooding.) It was a classic case of moral hazard: people are more likely to take risks if they know someone else will pay when the bet goes bad.

            But thanks to a 2012 law, flood insurance rates were finally supposed to start reflecting actual risks: if you wanted to build or remain in a flood zone, you were going to have to pay more. Over time, this could bring a dose of rationality to coastal development: if you were willing to bear the costs of building in a risky area, fine. If not, withdraw to somewhere safer.

            Except, it’s not working out that way.

            The insurance rate hikes have stunned property owners. In Louisiana (by far the biggest recipient of flood insurance payouts), some saw their rates skyrocket from hundreds of dollars annually to over $10,000. Congress could try to find a compromise that softens the blow, but that hasn’t happened.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmcquaid/2014/02/19/fema-cuts-a-break-to-wealthy-beachfront-property-owners-and-courts-climate-change-disaster/#2fc7b5c13ecf

            Marked as spam
            Posted by Dennis
            Answered on 02/12/2017 7:03 PM
              Private answer

              Machine, FYI Global Climate change is costing you and I a bundle:

              “In 1968, the federal government began offering flood insurance to homeowners who were unable to purchase affordable flood insurance from the private sector. Since then, the federal government has offered flood insurance premiums lower than the true risk in flood-prone areas would dictate.

              While the NFIP appeared to be able to cover the cost of its flood losses from pooled premiums of the insured for many years, that is no longer the case. The NFIP’s exposure to major floods is on the rise, as evidenced by Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. These events generated claims of approximately $24.6 billion, leaving the NFIP $23 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury.

              Although these floods felt like once-in-a-lifetime events, there is actually a 50 percent chance within a ten-year period the NFIP will once again experience Hurricane Sandy-sized losses.”

              https://www.fema.gov/blog/2017-01-03/increasing-flood-insurance-resilience-role-reinsurance

              Marked as spam
              Posted by Dennis
              Answered on 02/12/2017 7:31 PM
                Private answer

                “Global natural disasters result in $54bn of insured losses”
                “Natural disaster events worldwide were responsible for a combined economic loss of more than $200bn (£162n) in 2016, and $54bn of insured losses according to Aon Benfield”

                “Their 2016 Annual Global Climate and Catastrophe Report shows that last year was the seventh highest on record for economic losses, with flooding the most damaging peril, causing nearly one-third of the economic losses incurred.

                Record-breaking temperatures are thought to have been a significant contributor to an increase in severe weather, which combined with earthquakes and flooding, were responsible for 70% of all economic losses in 2016.”

                Reinsurance Investment “opportunities”:

                The top 15 global reinsurers and their assumed reinsurance premiums in 2014 are:

                1. Munich Re (Germany) – $40.96bn

                2. Swiss Re (Switzerland) – $28.85bn

                3. Hannover Re (Germany) – $19.08bn

                4. SCOR SE (France) – $15.03bn

                5. Berkshire Hathaway Inc (USA) – $14.92bn

                6. Lloyd’s of London (UK) – $14bn

                7. Reinsurance Group of America Inc (USA) – $9.1bn

                – PartnerRe + AXIS (Bermuda) – $8.32bn

                8. China Reinsurance (Group) Corp (China) – N/A, ranked according to firm’s 2013 value of premiums of $7.73bn

                9. AXA (France) – $5.92bn

                10. Korean Re (Korea) – $5.76bn

                11. PartnerRe Ltd (Bermuda) – $5.61bn

                12. Zurich Insurance Group Ltd (Switzerland) – $5.59bn

                13. Allianz Group (Germany) – $4.96bn

                14. XL + Catlin (Ireland) – $4.75bn

                15. Everest Re Group (Bermuda) – $4.52bn

                http://www.theactuary.com/news/2015/07/munich-re-takes-number-one-spot-in-top-15-global-reinsurers-rankings/
                http://www.theactuary.com/news/2017/01/global-natural-disasters-result-in-54bn-of-insured-losses/

                Marked as spam
                Posted by Dennis
                Answered on 02/12/2017 7:47 PM
                  Private answer

                  Well, actually Denis, the strawman is turning out to be that humans are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere at an alarming rapid rate AND that also has an singularly outsized effect on global warming compared to the other possible explanations. You do realize that the whole basis for the global warming doom porn is because unstable theoretical models SAYS SO that are now in direct contradiction to real world empirical evidence? What the heck do you call that, if not a strawman???

                  Marked as spam
                  Posted by MachineGhost
                  Answered on 02/12/2017 9:28 PM
                    Private answer

                    If we want to do anything about “climate change” — which is tactful acknowledgement that global warming indeed may be B.S. — then first the all politics and True Believers have to be ejected from the equation and then and only then we can perceive what is actually occuring via mind-independent facts. If Trump heralds a change in perceive career risk to present more global warming skeptic studies, it will have been worth it.

                    Marked as spam
                    Posted by MachineGhost
                    Answered on 02/12/2017 9:34 PM
                      Private answer

                      BTW, you keep posting non-global warming related “evidence”. Pulling a bait and switch by converting global warming into climate change doesn’t fly based on the “evidence”. The original argument is empirically weak at best, so resorting to an even lesser argument doesn’t bolster the original one iota.

                      I could post about all the recent record-breaking cold temperatures in the Middle East and globally as evidence that global cooling has been occuring instead of global warming, but I’m afraid of having it co-opted by the True Believers. What are they now climate change doom porners because they realized their global warming doom porn was flat out wrong? How long will it take them to come back down to Earth for global cooling?

                      Marked as spam
                      Posted by MachineGhost
                      Answered on 02/12/2017 9:43 PM
                        Private answer

                        BTW, anyone that wants to take on this subject has to study this pro-global warming site to fully understand how politically-motivated “science” produces narrow outputs: https://skepticalscience.com/

                        The “science” on the site is what most all so-called “authorities” (like the formoer VP of POTUS) use to declare the global warming, greenhouse gase effect, et al. “exists” and is “real” because they do not understand WTF talking are about so resort to appeal to authority. Remember, GIGO. If you feed a theoretical model only what you want to see in terms of output to further your career opportunities, you’ll surely get it.

                        Marked as spam
                        Posted by MachineGhost
                        Answered on 02/12/2017 9:51 PM
                          Private answer

                          Referring to Global Warming is just distracting. The argument has always come down to a simple point:

                          Human beings are having an adverse impact on the climate and that warrants some govt intervention.

                          Whether the Earth is heating up or not is really not the point. It’s just one of many risks that climate conservationists are concerned about when arguing that we need some govt intervention here.

                          Personally, I think the risks warrant some action. Is the govt going to solve the problem? No. Govt’s also don’t stop people from murdering other people. But having rules and regulations certainly doesn’t hurt.

                          Marked as spam
                          Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                          Answered on 02/12/2017 10:01 PM
                            Private answer

                            Thanks Cullen for sticking with logic here. I actually don’t see that big of a problem with temperature rise. The biggest threat that it causes is melting ice and ocean tides rising. I think technology and climate refugees can ameliorate much of the problems from global warming. These are local issues anyway. So let’s just dump the “global warming” straw man as even a serious problem. The other issues that are very evident today are occurring because of excess CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere (climate change), storms/floods etc., issues that Machine refuses to type about. So we can’t actually have a real discussion about this. That’s over.

                            So from an investment standpoint, what would you suggest we look to for long term investments because “we” understand climate change is for real? I suggested above that the reinsurance business is NOT one of them. The major electricity utilities are producing enormous amounts of power in the states that have heat waves because folks that have air conditioners are using them more. Also, the cost of natural gas, coal, and oil are lower. Plus, they have the handy side business of exacerbating these heat waves. But, because of local controls on public monopolies, infrastructure that needs constant attention, and susceptibility to damage from storms and floods, they don’t seem to provide a strong profit stream that one could rely upon. I can’t seem to find any businesses that benefit from climate change. Do you have any suggestions?

                            Marked as spam
                            Posted by Dennis
                            Answered on 02/13/2017 4:22 PM
                              Private answer

                              Personally, I am tired of the global warming-climate change debate. I very seldom engage in that discussion with anyone anymore (but of course I’m commenting here… Ha!) Why? Because I don’t care anymore. What I do care about is human induced pollution. Pollution of water, air, soil and all natural resources. I fully support any and all actions taken to protect the environment, from top to bottom, all the way down to the soda can I just pitched into the recycle bin. I really couldn’t care less what the climate scientists say……

                              Marked as spam
                              Posted by Randy
                              Answered on 02/13/2017 6:44 PM
                                Private answer

                                @Randy, I wish wish wish I could do the same. But I can’t because it is not what the “climate scientists say”, it about what is ACTUALLY happening. Here in my part of the world when we speak about “global warming” due to climate change it’s: “Huston, we have a problem”:

                                “Hawaii is expected to get significantly warmer: On our current path, by mid-century average temperatures will likely be between 1.6°F to 3.6°F warmer than temperatures over the past 40 years. ….

                                “Hawaii cannot reasonably be looked at as a stand-alone region, however: This state imports the vast majority of its food and energy, and is interdependent with the rest of the U. S. as well as the rest of the world. The recent tsunami in Japan and typhoon in the Philippines have awakened many businesses to the impact of a changing climate on global supply chains, and ultra-dependent regions like Hawaii are by necessity very sensitive to these realities. Changing agricultural yields on the mainland may have a significant effect on Hawaii in terms of food cost and availability. Similarly, higher energy costs in the continental U.S. are likely to drive the cost of imported energy even higher for Hawaii. The state is pushing forward to diversify its energy resources and rely more on domestic renewable sources; however, most of these installations are along the vulnerable coastlines.”

                                http://riskybusiness.org/site/assets/uploads/2015/09/RiskyBusiness_Report_WEB_09_08_14.pdf

                                Marked as spam
                                Posted by Dennis
                                Answered on 02/13/2017 7:14 PM
                                  Private answer

                                  What is actually happening, this:

                                  Attachments:
                                    Marked as spam
                                    Posted by Dennis
                                    Answered on 02/13/2017 7:26 PM
                                      Private answer

                                      GloBULL warming, or “Climate Change” A name by any other would smell a sweet as Shakespeare would say. I have followed this social/political football over the years and the easiest way to comprehend this movement is to simply Follow The MONEY.

                                      Like the Carbon Credits Exchange, WOW a whole new exchange where BILLIONS of dollars flow to save mother earth.. Bwa_ha_ha_ha… How nice of those who care to profit while “Saving Us”.

                                      Corporate managed Timberlands are far more beneficial to the environment that just letting dead timber and brush lay.
                                      Managed properly, dead brush is cleared and fire breaks are created. Some EnvironMENTAList want underbrush left all alone to save this or that and BAMO wildfire breaks out and burns all down pumping all sorts of smog into the air.

                                      But there is so much to the GloBull Scam.
                                      Tony Heller is the best Blogger I have read on it:
                                      https://realclimatescience.com/

                                      Marked as spam
                                      Posted by Cowpoke
                                      Answered on 02/13/2017 9:11 PM
                                        Private answer

                                        This post is so fitting for Today:
                                        “One hundred fifty-five years ago, California had a massive flood after two decades of drought. The only things different were that CO2 was below 300 PPM, they didn’t have the dimwitted Jerry Brown for governor, and the state wasn’t populated by tens of millions of left-wing morons who believe droughts and floods are caused by other people’s SUV’s.”
                                        https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/massive-flood-in-california-after-two-decades-of-drought/

                                        Perhaps we should bring back History as a required class in College instead of Queer studies.. LOL

                                        Marked as spam
                                        Posted by Cowpoke
                                        Answered on 02/13/2017 9:17 PM
                                          Private answer

                                          The idea that human beings are changing the Earth’s climate is not controversial. California was extremely progressive and proactive on these matters in the 60’s and 70’s due in large part to the problems in many of the basins such as the LA basin. Anyone who knows the history here in CA where all of the “morons” live (this “moron” is about 60 minutes south of LA) knows that the Clean Air Acts implemented played a huge role in combating the smog problem. It’s still a concern, but LA avoided becoming Beijing thanks to their proactive “morons”.

                                          Importantly, none of this is “bull”. Do Liberals exaggerate the dangers? Hell yes. But so do the climate change deniers. The truth, as is usually the case, is somewhere in the middle. but if you hate the govt so much that you’ll naively ignore the facts then go join some other blind man’s circle jerk. I don’t have any time for people who ignore facts.

                                          Look, I know Trump won and now every asshole on the planet thinks it’s his/her right to say whatever they want, but not here. There is zero free speech here. You’re in my house and if you disrespect it you get a boot in the ass.

                                          Thanks.

                                          Marked as spam
                                          Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                          Answered on 02/13/2017 9:47 PM
                                            Private answer

                                            “Look, I know Trump won and now every asshole on the planet thinks it’s his/her right to say whatever they want, but not here. There is zero free speech here. You’re in my house and if you disrespect it you get a boot in the ass.

                                            Thanks.”

                                            Umm Cullen, step away from the edge bro and put down the cudgel. These are simply threads where people speak their thoughts and actually GIVE YOU a pulse of those around you in society.

                                            SO if you feel compelled to rid yourself of others that are part of the world around you… Well you are the one who looses because you have eliminated a source of information be it good or bad to your liking.
                                            AND WHY?
                                            Who the heck LIMITS INFORMATION be it good or bad?
                                            Please elaborate.
                                            TIA

                                            Marked as spam
                                            Posted by Cowpoke
                                            Answered on 02/13/2017 10:21 PM
                                              Private answer

                                              Look, I appreciate the alternative perspectives, but I am hardly going to rely on a bunch of rich people reading my macro investing website to get the pulse of the country. I watch Fox News almost exclusively for this reason – I know exactly how little my California Bubble is and I do a lot to get views outside of it. But if you think the average Joe is chilling out on Pragcap drinking his Budweiser, cleaning his shotgun and mixing in a little bit of reading on Quantitative Easing then you’re sorely mistaken. You’re surrounded by a bunch of rich (mostly) white dudes who want to know how to protect the gobs of money they’ve made….That’s great. I am here to help and it’s my concern also, but don’t be fooled into thinking Pragcap is some working man’s website where a bunch of average Joe’s get to divulge their diversified views on the world….

                                              Speaking of which, let’s cut the bull shit about how Trump is the average Joe’s President. The median income of Trump’s voters was almost 50% higher than the median US income. I know it’s become popular to argue that Trump won because the “coastal elites” didn’t understand him, but that’s nonsense. Trump won for a simple reason – rich people don’t like the govt and Trump was going to reduce the size of the govt. Now, some coastal elites didn’t understand this. I did. Which is why I said Trump would win. But let’s not confuse Trump for the every man’s President. Trump is a person who loves Capitalism, thinks govt gets in the way and he plans on doing everything in his power to promote this agenda.

                                              Now, what you seem confused by is Trump’s social agenda. Look, he’s just saying all that crap to appease his base. He doesn’t really care that much about immigrants or healthcare or equality or the environment. Those are just talking points he has to make to make Republicans feel like he’s a true believer. Trump only cares about one thing – money. It’s his scoreboard and he’s gonna do everything in his power to make the scoreboard light up as much as he can. And if he makes it look like he did some other stuff along the way regarding immigration and other social issues then he’ll take it. But he doesn’t really care that much. So all these issues you’re arguing about (immigration and climate change) – they’re things he doesn’t really care about. And the Conservative media is pumping nonsense down your throat to make you feel like he does care. And you’re getting all riled up and coming on here calling people names and acting inappropriate because you fell for Trump’s social platform….He doesn’t care man. You think he's up at night worried about climate change and immigration? No, those are just things he said on the campaign trail that he now has to follow up on to make his extremist voters feel good. But don't be mistaken - he only cares about getting rich. That’s all.

                                              Marked as spam
                                              Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                              Answered on 02/13/2017 10:48 PM
                                                Private answer

                                                One more thing – yes, Liberals are way overreacting to a lot of this stuff. I seriously doubt Trump is as threatening as CNN makes him sound. Yes, he’s totally unprepared for this job and he’s making mistakes, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to accidentally fire off a nuke.

                                                But c’mon – these narratives being fed by some of the most extreme Conservative news outlets – they’re just as bad as the extremists on the Left. It’s crazy. I feel like both sides have suddenly lost their minds.

                                                Where are all the moderates who should be the voices of reason in a sea of extremism????

                                                Marked as spam
                                                Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                Answered on 02/13/2017 10:54 PM
                                                  Private answer

                                                  Cowpoke, Your point about California droughts and floods was interesting. The one you mention happened in 1955. I recall it well even though I was only 9 years old. Guess what. It’s happening again RIGHT NOW. It’s clear to me that “we” are not going to do ANYTHING about cutting back CO2 here in the USA. So don’t worry, enjoy the show!!!
                                                  http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/the-conversation/sd-what-flooding-at-oroville-dam-looks-like-20170213-htmlstory.html

                                                  Marked as spam
                                                  Posted by Dennis
                                                  Answered on 02/13/2017 11:05 PM
                                                    Private answer

                                                    Cullen, Calm down your making me think your pierced nose ringed niece has hijacked your user ID.

                                                    Remember with all due respect to MachineGhost the thread thread topic IS about Global Warming.

                                                    However, as you have been kind enough to remind us that this is your sand box and you alone control the buckets and shovels for the sand castle creation.

                                                    But just incase you have had too much red wine at dinner ( I have at times myself) at blasted before thinking let me tell ya this.

                                                    I watch Fox News as well and I’m NOT RICH.. Money wise that is.. I am however RICH in family, health ect.. I have 3 kids ALL HEALTHY THANK YOU JESUS.. 2 In College.. Which is why I bitch about college tuition and I see the BS classes they are subjected to that have absolutely Jack Shit to survival in a Modern Monetary Society.

                                                    Cullen, I have always appreciated your calm demeanor in explaining things even if your wrong and you have in the past been open to being wrong.

                                                    However, if you think you and your works are better served by going down a path of banning folks and silencing differing opinion than what you think. Well that’s your “red line” that you have draw and that’s your privilege. just be careful what you command..

                                                    Marked as spam
                                                    Posted by Cowpoke
                                                    Answered on 02/13/2017 11:12 PM
                                                      Private answer

                                                      See Sept 2015 vs Feb 13, 2017 Oroville Dam

                                                      Attachments:
                                                        Marked as spam
                                                        Posted by Dennis
                                                        Answered on 02/13/2017 11:13 PM
                                                          Private answer

                                                          The number of $ billion damage weather events is increasing. We do have a cause and effect situation that is being studied. I don’t know if we can change this or not. But to deny it’s happening…..what can we say?

                                                          Attachments:
                                                            Marked as spam
                                                            Posted by Dennis
                                                            Answered on 02/13/2017 11:25 PM
                                                              Private answer

                                                              @ Dennis, Dennis Do you live in California? This is a GREAT thread (Unless Der Fuhrer Closes us Down :) Snark)
                                                              I am in the midwest and am watching, hoping praying for you folks out west..

                                                              Marked as spam
                                                              Posted by Cowpoke
                                                              Answered on 02/13/2017 11:32 PM
                                                                Private answer

                                                                “The number of $ billion damage weather events is increasing. We do have a cause and effect situation that is being studied. I don’t know if we can change this or not. But to deny it’s happening…..what can we say?”
                                                                Well, first STOP THE STUPID F.n Queer studies shit all and f0cus on science and history and BIBLICAL principals.

                                                                It’s NOT very hard folks.

                                                                Marked as spam
                                                                Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                Answered on 02/13/2017 11:35 PM
                                                                  Private answer

                                                                  Cowpoke,

                                                                  I have a lot of patience, but I have very little patience for people who can’t make fact based arguments. You know me and you know that I based my world view on hard evidence. This whole climate change discussion is the best example. 99% of scientists agree that humans being are having an impact on the climate. They disagree on the extent, but climate change is not a hoax. Human beings really are changing the climate. We’re changing the air we breath, the water we drink, etc. If you don’t know this then again, go live in China for a year. This issue is not even a debate. Aside from a few outliers the scientific community agrees, almost universally that the climate is changing and that it’s caused by humans. Go read one of the 80 millions sources on this:

                                                                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

                                                                  The problem is, you’re not providing any factual data to support your arguments. You’ve provided a blog where some guy relies on ad hominems to support his points. Points, mind you, that are all strawman arguments. The “morons” in CA aren’t just arguing that climate change is about SUVs.

                                                                  I am open to being proven wrong, but again, you’re not making a very convincing argument….

                                                                  Marked as spam
                                                                  Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                  Answered on 02/13/2017 11:48 PM
                                                                    Private answer

                                                                    Holy cow, are we really citing the Bible in a discussion about science? Is that where this is headed?

                                                                    Look man, I studied at Jesuit Schools. One of them was only the most famous Jesuit University in the world. Luckily, the Jesuits are amazing educators. And they make it very clear that the bible is not intended to be interpreted literally. In fact, in High School a priest made it very clear in our Science of Theology course that you really shouldn’t rely on the Bible at all when making scientific determinations. So, if you’re going to bring the Bible into this then don’t. Just don’t. You’re misusing the book’s generally useful messages.

                                                                    Marked as spam
                                                                    Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                    Answered on 02/13/2017 11:52 PM
                                                                      Private answer

                                                                      Cowpoke, I have a home near SFO and another on Maui. Both are wonderful. Yes, I’m a multimillionaire because I helped start a company called “Genentech Inc.” (I was number 5), with a net worth that went from $100,000 to $100 Billion during my 31 years as a Ph.D scientist (molecular biology) and later patent agent working in litigation — where the real money was won or lost. Our company was one of the first to really let employees share ownership in their company in a big way. I understand completely that a company is all about profit margin and market share. In order to make gains on BOTH you need innovation in order to create products that meet unmet needs and are new (thus patentable). We did that. I understand how climate change was and is being dealt with in “my” company. It is serious and has ruined quite a few companies already. Now, you must understand that picking on me is not a good idea, and I don’t like it one bit!

                                                                      Marked as spam
                                                                      Posted by Dennis
                                                                      Answered on 02/13/2017 11:57 PM
                                                                        Private answer

                                                                        “I am open to being proven wrong, but again, you’re not making a very convincing argument….”
                                                                        Aight, I will provide an argument tomorrow (I need my sleep) provided I am not BANNED from the planet at most or prag caps “ASK ME ANYTHING” See That Brother Cullen ANYTHING.. Please don’t ban me before I wake up tomorrow and give a reply. I am tired now and my answers would not be very cognisant.. Good Night.. :)

                                                                        Marked as spam
                                                                        Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                        Answered on 02/14/2017 12:05 AM
                                                                          Private answer

                                                                          Sigh. No one is getting banned. But you have to understand that I need some rules around here. I pay a lot of money to host this website and I’ve invested a lot of time making sure that it’s a place of good decorum where useful discussions happen. The reason I sometimes ban people is because some people have this false idea that the internet is a place where they can just say anything and do anything. Well, it’s not. When you’re on a website you’re using someone else’s property. As far as I am concerned, you’re in my house and I am really happy to have you here. But the second you start calling other visitors names or acting unruly, well, then I need to show you the door.

                                                                          So just behave. Act like a grown man. Act like we’re talking face to face like real people trying to have a useful discussion. We're all friends here trying to learn and talk about the world. That's all. So leave the name calling and nonsense for the playground.

                                                                          Thanks.

                                                                          Marked as spam
                                                                          Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                          Answered on 02/14/2017 12:08 AM
                                                                            Private answer

                                                                            Cowpoke, What my company did is described in its annual reports. Instead of adding to our present medicine preparation facilities we decided to build the needed space in other locations, even in other states. This was expensive, but a weather event could close one of our facilities. With this plan we could use the other facility, so we would not have a “stock out”. Our products are very expensive life-extending medicines. We could not, in good conscious, tell a patient: “sorry, we will not have your medicine available until our facility is back in operation. Because of the complexity, this will not happen until well after you are DEAD.”

                                                                            I’m telling you this because there is no question in my mind that a concerted CO2 production reduction effort will not happen in the USA. You are evidence of the likelihood of this horrible outcome. So, instead of waiting for the inevitable bad event, we had to prepare for what will happen. With the over-the-top climate change denial, many folks in vulnerable areas are not motivated to prepare for that eventuality. This is a BIG mistake. The infrastructure needs to be updated. Instead, we are told of the need for a yuuuuge wall to protect us from people, because the Orange one that says he will “make America great again”, and cares NOT that many of our industries are inevitable victims of climate change.

                                                                            Marked as spam
                                                                            Posted by Dennis
                                                                            Answered on 02/14/2017 5:51 AM
                                                                              Private answer

                                                                              Meanwhile…..If global warming is caused by excessive CO2 production by humans, shouldn’t the amount of humans be taken into consideration? If we achieve a 50% per capita reduction in CO2 production in the next 75 years and the world’s population doubles, we are at square 1. THIS is the major problem. The only solutions I have been seeing amount to putting band-aids on an arterial bleed.

                                                                              Marked as spam
                                                                              Posted by troll
                                                                              Answered on 02/14/2017 10:59 AM
                                                                                Private answer

                                                                                Here’s a good take – A Conservative Case for Climate Change Action:

                                                                                https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-case-for-climate-action.html?smid=pl-share

                                                                                Marked as spam
                                                                                Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                Answered on 02/14/2017 1:01 PM
                                                                                  Private answer

                                                                                  @ Troll. Yep, your heading in the right direction with those thoughts.
                                                                                  Here is the Carbon Tax Temperature-Savings Calculator:
                                                                                  https://www.cato.org/carbon-tax-temperature-savings-calculator

                                                                                  it’s referenced in this article: http://manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2017/2/9/watch-out-for-rule-by-the-smart-part-iii

                                                                                  That is a pretty decent response to the article that Cullen referenced regarding the Climate Leadership Council project.

                                                                                  The ironic thing is these former Reagan people know Reagan would have had nothing to do with their plan.

                                                                                  I don’t trust this type of taxing and regulating a supposed problem out of existence. If people are so freaked out by co2 then plant a tree or let the grass grow a bit longer.

                                                                                  Another point to all this is why are there no programs to pay people like me who has land with 100’s of trees Giant oaks, ever greens, maples ect..
                                                                                  I am doing my part by not cutting them down and letting them work on vacuuming co2 out of the air. Shouldn’t I get bigger credit than someone living in an apartment or a regular city lot with one or two trees?

                                                                                  Marked as spam
                                                                                  Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                  Answered on 02/14/2017 7:05 PM
                                                                                    Private answer

                                                                                    The C02 discussion is a strawman. It’s like saying that the flu isn’t a problem because doctors were wrong about what causes it. Who cares what causes the Earth’s climate to change? I mean, I know why scientists want to know precisely, but who really cares? The fact is, human beings are having a big impact on the environment.

                                                                                    Also, you don’t tax and regulate to eliminate a problem. You tax and regulate to nudge people to be more aware and behave better. Govt doesn’t solve problems. They nudge people in the direction of where we should be going. We should want clean water, air and resources. If you’re against it just because you don’t believe the govt is effective then you don’t understand what the govt’s role is and your rejection of their role is a simple misunderstanding of their role within the context of this discussion….

                                                                                    In any case, it is just common sense that human beings are having a big impact on our environment. We are polluting the water and the air. To what degree is of great debate. But to flat out reject this notion is just wrong, naive and probably ideological. We should all want the govt to be involved here to some extent but it’s just wrong to say you flat out reject it. It’s like rejecting Central Banking because you don’t understand it. Well, as everyone here should know, Central Banks are just clearinghouses and the govt is a much better regulator of central clearing than private banks are. To reject Central Banking is to misunderstand the govt’s necessary role in nudging banks to behave better.

                                                                                    As I’ve said before, the govt is not going to solve this problem any better than they can solve the homicide problem. But they can nudge people to be more aware and try to be better.

                                                                                    Marked as spam
                                                                                    Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                    Answered on 02/14/2017 10:17 PM
                                                                                      Private answer

                                                                                      Umm you say ” You tax and regulate to nudge people to be more aware and behave better” And ” They nudge people in the direction of where we should be going. “

                                                                                      OK so “they” the govt has all the answers about where WE should be going? REALLY? Let’s Grant? ELECTED politicians and bureaucrats carte blanche? OK Cullen so you should be comfortable with President Trump “Nudging”
                                                                                      us into a directions we should go correct?

                                                                                      Marked as spam
                                                                                      Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                      Answered on 02/15/2017 12:23 AM
                                                                                        Private answer

                                                                                        No one said the govt has all the right answers. You know, if every conclusion you make is the most extreme one then there’s no point talking.

                                                                                        Marked as spam
                                                                                        Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                        Answered on 02/15/2017 12:32 AM
                                                                                          Private answer

                                                                                          @Troll “If global warming is caused by excessive CO2 production by humans, shouldn’t the amount of humans be taken into consideration?”

                                                                                          Yes, Troll clearly if we kill off 1/2 or more of the population of the world you and I will be fine. We’ll make the world great again! Let’s start with the rich folks, oh, but that will kill off the stock market. So, no prob, kill off the workers…but then who is going to do all that work? I know, take out the middle men and the advertising folks, nobody will miss them! They got to be 1/2 of the world’s population! Data: look at all those ads! The ad revenue number is nearing infinite these days. Knocking out the ads is the answer to global warming! Without the ads, NOBODY is going to buy stuff! If nobody buys stuff then there will be way less CO2.

                                                                                          OK Troll, we got this! No middle men, no ads, no products pushed on us, AND no CO2.

                                                                                          Marked as spam
                                                                                          Posted by Dennis
                                                                                          Answered on 02/15/2017 3:04 AM
                                                                                            Private answer

                                                                                            So Cullen says “The C02 discussion is a strawman. It’s like saying that the flu isn’t a problem because doctors were wrong about what causes it. Who cares what causes the Earth’s climate to change? I mean, I know why scientists want to know precisely, but who really cares? The fact is, human beings are having a big impact on the environment.”

                                                                                            If you let the so-called “straw man” (e.g. we have a rise in CO2) influence your opinion, how does that bad data inform your conclusion? Well, it’s big time because that one factor has a yuuuuuge impact on life on this earth that is well understood. The scientist/doctors at this point in time do not guess about the flu. They know its DNA sequence, every protein it makes, how it’s proteins work, how it spreads to folks, how it get into our cells, how it destroys cells that are infected, how our immune system works, how vaccines can help, and ultimately how to ameliorate some of the problem (e.g. actually to a great extent — google “Spanish flu” 16 million lives gone). We know, but there are a lot of “anti-vaccineers” out there.

                                                                                            The other issue is the number of humans who are creating all that CO2 or getting the flu. Soooo forget the flu/CO2 and take on Troll’s plan: let’s get rid of 1/2 of humans! perfect! Let’s start a war, let’s blow up some nukes, it’s easy. The handy side benefit is that since there are 1/2 fewer people, only 1/2 of the former world’s population can get infected with the flu! The problem is 1/2 solved! The other 1/2 are already DEAD. WOW

                                                                                            I think we need to be more realistic. Our world population is increasing! We need to understand that climate change is happening. We aren’t going to stop it, so let’s see what kind of vaccine/infrastructure we can invest in that might make a difference. Climate change denial is not a good idea. We can do things.

                                                                                            Reducing CO2 IMHO is not going to happen. Nobody wants to spend his money on a future problem. We have enough problems to spend are moolah on already. Look at all the forest fires! We have CO2 in abundance coming. What happens if the methane of the tundra gets a lighting bolt and starts a methane fire that can not be put out?

                                                                                            We need to think about how to cope since we’re not going to fix anything. I think there are investment opportunities….if folks want to prepare for the inevitable damages. Vaccines saved a LOT of lives. Now get back to “Pragmatic Capitalism” and come up with some profitable ideas that might just work. Killing off 1/2 the world’s folks is not profitable Troll, IMHO. https://www.voicesforvaccines.org/i-was-duped-by-the-anti-vaccine-movement/

                                                                                            Marked as spam
                                                                                            Posted by Dennis
                                                                                            Answered on 02/15/2017 3:47 AM
                                                                                              Private answer

                                                                                              Dennis, did you read the article MachineGhost presented in the first post?

                                                                                              This is why it’s hard for folks to get behind this stuff because there is a lack of credibility that has mounted over the years and the Pausebuster paper is just another nail in the coffin.

                                                                                              Excerpts:

                                                                                              “A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

                                                                                              “Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.”

                                                                                              “Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’
                                                                                              ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.”

                                                                                              “Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
                                                                                              The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.”

                                                                                              I like his summary here:

                                                                                              ‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’

                                                                                              Marked as spam
                                                                                              Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                              Answered on 02/15/2017 9:59 AM
                                                                                                Private answer

                                                                                                CP,

                                                                                                So let’s get this out in the air. What is your position here? Do you think the EPA should be abolished? Do you think humans have no impact on the environment? Are you just against the idea of global warming or are you saying humans aren’t changing the environment at all and that therefore govt has no role here?

                                                                                                Marked as spam
                                                                                                Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                Answered on 02/15/2017 12:28 PM
                                                                                                  Private answer

                                                                                                  Well, I think humans impact the environment in both good and bad way. I think we should try and be good stewards of the planet within reason like keeping lakes and rivers clean. I am fine with laws against dumping hazardous material etc..
                                                                                                  My concern is that when bureaucrats get involved with such a complex system as the environment and it’s temperature (of which the sun is the main engine) I think in the end the main benefactors are bureaucrats and a small cabal that would oversee their proposed solutions like carbon credits and carbon exchanges etc as well as the bureaucratic regulatory agencies that would over see it would most certainly grow outa control.
                                                                                                  And regular folks will be fleeced by higher cost all for little to no environmental impact. But it makes some people feel good.

                                                                                                  On the EPA, Yes, I am fine with abolishing it or at least gutting it back down to size.
                                                                                                  Mission creep causes these bureaucracies to grow outa control.
                                                                                                  I have a pond behind my house that is nothing more than a basin for minnows, frogs and turtles and a skating rink in the winter. However, because of their ever constant march towards more control over what they deem as a “Navigable Waterway” I fear them banning my septic system and water well and forcing me to use city water and sewer at my expense of course.

                                                                                                  These types of boogie man projects always concern me. The boogie man is the co2 and global climate change and we are all going to die unless we listen to a few elites who have the answers and pony up billions of dollars and cede more power and authority to unelected bureaucrats.

                                                                                                  As Forbes points out:” But there is a point here more fundamental than the pros and cons of this, or any, administrative regulation. Do we really want our laws to be made by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats?
                                                                                                  http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2015/02/06/thanks-epa-your-new-navigable-waters-rule-strengthens-the-case-against-administrative-law/2/#48231971133f

                                                                                                  With the constant expansion of the regulatory state since the 1930s, Americans have gotten used to having to obey (although sometimes battle) rules decreed by those bureaucrats. It is a bad habit that we should break, argues Columbia Law School professor Philip Hamburger in his powerful book Is Administrative Law Unlawful?”

                                                                                                  And this climate change movement has been going on for decades. It was global cooling in the 70’s and then global warming in the 90’s and then after the 13 year pause in warming the narrative was changed to “climate change”.
                                                                                                  I think there is so much money at stake here that it should warrant caution and due diligence.
                                                                                                  I am reminded of President Eisenhower exit speech when he said:

                                                                                                  “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

                                                                                                  Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

                                                                                                  Those words seem to me prevalent today with gobs of money being thrown around academia to achieve results that fit a narrative.

                                                                                                  Based on what I have read giving in to a man made climate change concept still doesn’t really change much because the solutions will have such a minimal impact for such huge cost.

                                                                                                  Did you know there are 1000’s of coal seem fires around the world? Yep, one has been burning for over 6000 yes thousand years in Australia
                                                                                                  http://gizmodo.com/the-worlds-oldest-underground-fire-has-been-burning-fo-1539049759

                                                                                                  Dennis said he has a place in Hawaii, I lived on the big island and remember the Vog alerts (volcano pollution)
                                                                                                  http://www.konaweb.com/vog/

                                                                                                  These are things that are natural to a living planet, are we going to stop them with laws and regulations?
                                                                                                  I am all for helping out sensibly where I can with in reason however when Govt bureaucracies and big business get in bed together to try and abolish a boogyman to save me, well my B.S. alarm goes off.

                                                                                                  Marked as spam
                                                                                                  Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                  Answered on 02/15/2017 4:30 PM
                                                                                                    Private answer

                                                                                                    That seems like a pretty reasonable position. So, what it comes down to is “are we spending more on the environmental stuff than we should be?”

                                                                                                    The budget of the EPA is about 8 billion per year. To put this in perspective, we spend 600 billion per year on the military to protect the nation from foreign threats while we spend about 5% of that much on environmental matters.

                                                                                                    This strikes me as wildly out of order. If you’re concerned that we spend too much on the environment then the military spending must blow your mind.

                                                                                                    So again, you seem to have a legitimate concern, but within the context of govt spending it seems to be the exact wrong focus through which you might actually fix the problem you’re concerned about….

                                                                                                    Marked as spam
                                                                                                    Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                    Answered on 02/15/2017 4:50 PM
                                                                                                      Private answer

                                                                                                      Some good points Cowpoke: “I think humans impact the environment in both good and bad way. I think we should try and be good stewards of the planet within reason like keeping lakes and rivers clean. I am fine with laws against [the bad stuff].” For example, the economy/technology of the world has taken billions of folks out of abject poverty over the last century. But, governments can truly mess up bad e.g. Venezuela today and Germany 1931 and cause death by the millions. So it’s always a balance.

                                                                                                      IMHO the government should support our capitalist life. There are projects that can not be done by the people and it’s companies alone. We need to work together on projects that benefit us all, help make capitalists profitable by doing things that are otherwise not profitable projects. These important yet unprofitable projects on their face are all socialistic and require appropriations from all of us in a fair way. If our representatives (at all levels of government from POTUS to HOA), don’t want to help do this then why the F do they run for office?

                                                                                                      That IMHO is the problem. Here in Hawaii, our legislature is considering well over 1,000 new bills over the next three 3 month period, each one with new rules and many with appropriations. Year after year hundreds of bill become law. It’s like a kind of dandruff that can not be washed out–ever. The bills that float to the top are the ones with “hot air” in them like poopies in a toilet.

                                                                                                      Our Hawaii bureaucrats are pulling their collective hairs out trying to implement all these mind-numbing laws. It’s NOT their fault! All I’m saying is if you don’t vote for good people then the whole system is messed up. Why the F do they run for office when they are supposed to be “Law Makers” and they know NOTHING about laws nor following them? BTW, it’s getting a warm around here.

                                                                                                      Marked as spam
                                                                                                      Posted by Dennis
                                                                                                      Answered on 02/15/2017 5:16 PM
                                                                                                        Private answer

                                                                                                        Cullen, do you know where this outcropping is located? Watch the image as it will slowly change.
                                                                                                        https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/lajolla18712b.gif
                                                                                                        High tide at La Jolla is exactly the same as it was in 1871.
                                                                                                        After over 140 years of industrialization 2 world wars and a cold war that set off over 2000 nuclear test explosions you would think that out cropping would be under more water from all the ice melting were told about.

                                                                                                        Dennis, your spot on. Look at Cullen’s state California (Not to harp on the illegal debate again)
                                                                                                        But california spends 25 Billion a year on Illegals,
                                                                                                        And look at that Orville Dam, they were warned 12 years ago and chose to spend money elsewhere.
                                                                                                        Where are priorities?

                                                                                                        Govt is failing at it’s basic duties because there are so special interest many groups vying for capital for their own agenda.

                                                                                                        I can only imagine the stuff that would be wasted with a muti billion dollar climate change bureaucracy.
                                                                                                        I bet they would spend millions on sunscreen for penguins.

                                                                                                        Marked as spam
                                                                                                        Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                        Answered on 02/15/2017 7:37 PM
                                                                                                          Private answer

                                                                                                          Like I typed, it’s not the bureaucrats, it’s our reps! Why would they pass that law to protect penguins with sunscreen? Because, the sunscreen seller with his contributions to his rep’s campaign have purchased him. The bureaucrats are the ones have to round up the penguins!

                                                                                                          “Several top officials at the State Department resigned their posts.

                                                                                                          “They include Patrick Kennedy, who had been the undersecretary of management since the George W. Bush administration, as well as Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Anne Barr, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Michele Bond, and Gentry Smith, who directed the Office of Foreign Missions.”

                                                                                                          The lying trump administration sources told CNN that the officials had been fired rather than quit.

                                                                                                          “You’ve gone and broke the wrong heart, baby.”
                                                                                                          “I’m gonna aim my headlights into your bedroom windows”

                                                                                                          Marked as spam
                                                                                                          Posted by Dennis
                                                                                                          Answered on 02/15/2017 10:16 PM
                                                                                                            Private answer

                                                                                                            “A bureaucrat is a member of a bureaucracy and can compose the administration of any organization of any size, although the term usually connotes someone within an institution of government. Some usages restrict the term so that it only embraces lower-ranked staff members in an agency, excluding higher-ranked managers, or so that it only signifies officials who perform certain functions, such as those who work “desk jobs” (the French word for “desk” being bureau, though bureau can also be translated as “office”).
                                                                                                            The term bureaucrat derives from “bureaucracy”, which in turn derives from the French “bureaucratie” first known from the 18th century. Bureaucratic work had already been performed for many centuries.” Wikipedia

                                                                                                            Marked as spam
                                                                                                            Posted by Dennis
                                                                                                            Answered on 02/15/2017 11:52 PM
                                                                                                              Private answer

                                                                                                              Last word from the top of the earth: “Sea ice observed in January 2017 in the Arctic was the lowest in the 38 years of satellite record offsite links and 100,000 square miles less than 2016. That’s equivalent to the size of Colorado.”

                                                                                                              http://www.noaa.gov/news/unprecedented-arctic-weather-has-scientists-on-edge

                                                                                                              Marked as spam
                                                                                                              Posted by Dennis
                                                                                                              Answered on 02/17/2017 10:46 PM
                                                                                                                Private answer
                                                                                                                Marked as spam
                                                                                                                Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                Answered on 02/18/2017 11:17 AM
                                                                                                                  Private answer

                                                                                                                  CP,

                                                                                                                  The website you’re citing is written by someone with a degree in electrical engineering whose work on the climate (which is not his field of expertise!!!) has been debunked by several reputable sources including NASA engineers and Politifact.

                                                                                                                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Goddard

                                                                                                                  This guy’s web site is fake news.

                                                                                                                  Marked as spam
                                                                                                                  Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                  Answered on 02/18/2017 3:22 PM
                                                                                                                    Private answer

                                                                                                                    Sorry, we are dealing with fake news rather than macroeconomics (see attached). Folks are just drawn to simple answers and quick fixes. This article expands on Cowpoke’s point: “I think humans impact the environment in both good and bad ways.”

                                                                                                                    “[G]reenhouse gases (GHGs) from fossil fuels, together with land-use change, have become the major drivers of global climate change [10,36,37]. Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide not only exceed pre-industrial concentrations by ∼40%, 150%, and 20%, respectively, they are now substantially above their maximum ranges of fluctuation over the past 800,000 years [36] while total carbon dioxide emissions continue to grow at a rapid rate [38]. Arctic sea ice, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, global glacier mass, permafrost area, and Northern Hemisphere snow cover are all decreasing substantially, while ocean surface temperatures, sea level, and ocean acidification are rising [36]. Arctic sea ice is decreasing at an average rate of 3.0 ± 0.3 m2 per metric ton of CO2 emissions and at the current emissions rate of 35 giga ton per year could completely disappear by 2050 during Septembers [39].The rate of ocean acidification, in particular, is currently estimated to be at least 100 times faster than at any other time in the last 20 million years [12].”

                                                                                                                    See attached Open Access article from the National Science Review 3: 470–494, 2016: nww081.pdf

                                                                                                                    Attachments:
                                                                                                                    Marked as spam
                                                                                                                    Posted by Dennis
                                                                                                                    Answered on 02/18/2017 10:26 PM
                                                                                                                      Private answer

                                                                                                                      Cowpoke, sorry this issue is complex in some ways, and not in others.
                                                                                                                      https://phys.org/journals/nature-climate-change/

                                                                                                                      Marked as spam
                                                                                                                      Posted by Dennis
                                                                                                                      Answered on 02/18/2017 10:38 PM
                                                                                                                        Private answer

                                                                                                                        “The website you’re citing is written by someone with a degree in electrical engineering whose work on the climate (which is not his field of expertise!!!)”

                                                                                                                        Cullen do you see the Irony here bro? As you have so often reminded your community here at pragcap your just a guy with a blog.
                                                                                                                        I take slight umbrage with your statement because I try and weed out the fake BS. Which is why I have followed your blog for many years as I have Real Science on climate.

                                                                                                                        Has he gotten a few things wrong, Yep, Just like you did in your early MMT days. Has he pressed on to overcomes those bumps.. Yep, Just like You Have :) And hopefully we are all better off educated for it.

                                                                                                                        Think about this, do you think I get get people calling you a fake economist or what ever when I direct them to your site for very enlightening information about a topic that is somewhat clouded by so much misinformation?
                                                                                                                        If I put trust in you “Just a guy with a blog” to give me the straight up on how the Modern Monetary System functions why would I be any less trusting of another I have spent years reading and following up on what he says?

                                                                                                                        Marked as spam
                                                                                                                        Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                        Answered on 02/19/2017 10:19 AM
                                                                                                                          Private answer

                                                                                                                          Apples and oranges. I actually studied finance and economics at a prestigious school, worked in finance for almost 2 decades, am a big 5 published author and researcher in finance and economics. This climate change denier is just a random dude with a blog. He doesn't have any background in climate studies, zero published researched and no experience working in any industry related to the climate. Why would anyone trust this guy's writing? ….

                                                                                                                          Marked as spam
                                                                                                                          Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                          Answered on 02/19/2017 12:49 PM
                                                                                                                            Private answer

                                                                                                                            > 99% of scientists agree that humans being are having an impact on the
                                                                                                                            > climate. They disagree on the extent, but climate change is not a hoax.
                                                                                                                            > Human beings really are changing the climate.

                                                                                                                            Consensus isn’t science or facts — its merely opinion. Why must this topic always be conflated with the other topics? Global warming != pollution. Global warming != climate change. Global warming != global cooling. Global warming is the current religion de jour, not that others.

                                                                                                                            I agree that human being really are changing the climate… to such a MINOR extent that it is not worth the frenzied doom porn in worrying about. There are other overwhelming factors that are not of human doing. But then I don’t have a career or capital to protect as a leftist (or rightist). So I can be the little boy that points out that the Emperor has no clothes.

                                                                                                                            Does that mean we should do nothing to prepare for a global warming that isn’t happening? Well, if you look at who advocates “doing something”, it is political Watermelons who have an anti-freedom, anti-individual, pro-tax, pro-control agenda. Why should anyone trust or do what these power-hungry mongers say?

                                                                                                                            Now, I admit I don’t know if the global warming True Believers have moderated as a group and are now in the lesser debrainwashed position to actually consider global cooling as happening under the guise of “climate change” Newspeak. But, thats what mind-independent facts tend to do instead of ideology picking only the “facts” that agree with them. It takes time for that process to happen.

                                                                                                                            > We’re changing the air we breath, the water we drink, etc. If you don’t know
                                                                                                                            > this then again, go live in China for a year. This issue is not even a
                                                                                                                            > debate. Aside from a few outliers the scientific community agrees, almost
                                                                                                                            > universally that the climate is changing and that it’s caused by humans. Go
                                                                                                                            > read one of the 80 millions sources on this:

                                                                                                                            Who cares what a tight knit, ultra liberal, pro-technocratic group has a collective lemming opinion about? They’re almost always wrong and history proves this many times over and over and over. They were once into global cooling, then that SO2 causes global warming, then that CO2 causes global warming, what will they move onto next? They’ll just keep trying to find a bogie man to ram into their GIGO simulation models all to justify their interventionist political ideology.

                                                                                                                            Pollution actually causes global cooling instead of global warming — is that what you meant? But again, pollution is in its own category and has nothing to do with global warming. Carbon dioxide isn’t pollution. If anyone really believes that, they’re ignoring a basic fact of all Earth life.

                                                                                                                            Anyway its easy enough to see what the mind-independent facts are — if one only dares to go outside the cultivated mainstream echo-chamber of propaganda “facts”. Simply compare the order of a magnitude higher levels of CO2 and several hundreds of thousands of years of global cooling/warming history before 1850 — OUT OF SAMPLE — and compare it to the 1850-current period “predictions” based on GIGO theoretical models. Epic fail. It’s like performing a backtest that specifically excludes 2007-2009 because it doesn’t conform to one’s wide-eyed optimisim in being a Perma-Bull. Same shit, different realm.

                                                                                                                            If Trump pulls the political wool off True Believers’s and Watermelon’s eyes and we can get more accurate inputs fed into these unstable theoretical climate models to show that global warming is not happening, has not been happening and is not going to happen, and it gets disseminated widely instead of censored by all of the self-interested political gatekeepers, then we will represent reality much more accurately and then people will finally come to wide-spread consensus and stop arguing about it. The fact there is no wide-spread consensus should be a warning sign there’s a stinky dead rat hidden somewhere in the dogmas.

                                                                                                                            Bottom line: CO2 being the major driver for global warming is nothing more than doom porn based on politically-created hypotheticals in contradiction to overwhelming empirical evidence. Remember, there has been NO global warming since 2000 and we’re actually nearer the cyclic end of a long-term warm period and might even go into another Maunder Minimum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

                                                                                                                            Another bottom line: The more one prepares for a political doom porn de jour scenario that isn’t actually happening in the real world, the more one is gonna freeze to death when global cooling bitchslaps them upside the head. Take a lesson here… don’t be a zealot to one extreme or the other. Belief is the death of intelligence.

                                                                                                                            Marked as spam
                                                                                                                            Posted by MachineGhost
                                                                                                                            Answered on 02/20/2017 12:52 AM
                                                                                                                              Private answer

                                                                                                                              “Bottom line: CO2 being the major driver for global warming is nothing more than doom porn based on politically-created hypotheticals in contradiction to overwhelming empirical evidence. Remember, there has been NO global warming since 2000 and we’re actually nearer the cyclic end of a long-term warm period and might even go into another Maunder Minimum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

                                                                                                                              Another bottom line: The more one prepares for a political doom porn de jour scenario that isn’t actually happening in the real world, the more one is gonna freeze to death when global cooling bitchslaps them upside the head. Take a lesson here… don’t be a zealot to one extreme or the other. Belief is the death of intelligence.”

                                                                                                                              Good summarization MG, I would think Cullen and those living in California would be more concerned with the next Earthquake because that is a global event that will more directly impact them than Global Climate Change in their lifetime.

                                                                                                                              Cullen, Is Al Core a qualified “Climate Scientist”? Leonardo Dicaprio? LOL.. :)

                                                                                                                              Marked as spam
                                                                                                                              Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                              Answered on 02/20/2017 10:33 PM
                                                                                                                                Private answer

                                                                                                                                No one mentioned anything about “doom”. All we’re saying is that human beings are changing the climate and that this justifies SOME govt involvement in the situation. It’s the climate deniers who refuse to admit that the environment is changing and therefore want to abolish the EPA, all govt spending and regulation on the environment. Personally, I think most of the climate deniers are just Conservatives who hate govt spending, taxes and regulation and will find any excuse to eliminate them. Even if it means ignoring 99% of the experts in favor of random bloggers with degrees in electrical engineering….

                                                                                                                                Again, when you guys take everything to its illogical extreme then you discredit your argument.

                                                                                                                                It’s not the Liberals who are taking the extreme positions on climate change. It’s the Conservatives who deny that it’s even a risk worth considering. I mean, the USA spends 0.0004% of GDP on the EPA and if you watched nothing but Fox News you’d think this was the biggest waste of money on the planet….Get a grip guys. We’re not talking about budget busting spending here. We’re talking about a fairly small amount of spending backed by a lot of very reasonable science.

                                                                                                                                Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                Answered on 02/20/2017 10:46 PM
                                                                                                                                  Private answer

                                                                                                                                  OK lets Start Here:
                                                                                                                                  “it’s even a risk worth considering. I mean, the USA spends 0.0004% of GDP on the EPA”
                                                                                                                                  OK Cullen, NO Disrespect my fellow American but you keep equating the cost of a govt rule to the govt itself INSTEAD OF THE GROUP THE RULE AFFECTS.

                                                                                                                                  And tHAT “Reasonable Science” Science of which you speak is in fact POLITICIZEd

                                                                                                                                  So Cullen, are you more concerned about the climate (Air events “Climate”) OR land events (Earthquakes)
                                                                                                                                  That will affect California’s Economy?
                                                                                                                                  TIA..

                                                                                                                                  Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                  Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                  Answered on 02/20/2017 11:37 PM
                                                                                                                                    Private answer

                                                                                                                                    I’m in San Diego about as far from any major fault lines as most other Americans. If you’re going to try to strawman me into a position then at least know who you’re strawmanning….

                                                                                                                                    Let’s cut to the chase here. You’re arguing against climate change because you don’t want the govt involved in the discussion. You think the science is 100% bunk and that that justifies a 0% involvement by the govt here. I think the science is at least partially verified (like, dumping coal waste in rivers is bad) and perhaps mostly verified (like, humans are causing significant irreparable damage to the climate). In my opinion, the risks and science justify spending a very small portion of the federal budget researching and protecting us from these matters.

                                                                                                                                    That’s not an unreasonable position and it’s the position held by most Liberals on this matter. You, on the other hand, are taking the extremist denier position. I’m sorry, but I don’t think you’ve supported this position with reasonable evidence and facts. So I reject your extremist position in favor of something more moderate and reasonable.

                                                                                                                                    Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                    Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                    Answered on 02/20/2017 11:56 PM
                                                                                                                                      Private answer

                                                                                                                                      “That will affect California’s Economy?”
                                                                                                                                      Sorry, my bad I didn’t realize San Diego was not part of California’s economy. (snark)

                                                                                                                                      Cullen, you say this” In my opinion, the risks and science justify spending a very small portion of the federal budget researching and protecting us from these matters.”

                                                                                                                                      I have no issue with that. In fact we already do. Did you actually read the initial article though?

                                                                                                                                      Here:
                                                                                                                                      “Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data. “

                                                                                                                                      See that not a guy with a blog he is/was “A NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation”

                                                                                                                                      AND HE provided “irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data”

                                                                                                                                      What is so hard to comprehend there?

                                                                                                                                      Sure, the EPA’s budget is small between 8 and 11 Billion. HOWEVER what do the thousand of regs and rules cost the economy, business consumer vs Benefit?
                                                                                                                                      100’s of Billions. My question/concern is if this is a proper way to allocate funds. Who cares if it cost business XX Billion etc.., It creates jobs in that XX area.

                                                                                                                                      Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                      Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                      Answered on 02/21/2017 9:41 AM
                                                                                                                                        Private answer

                                                                                                                                        I’m really not concerned with the he said/she said about a few specific papers. That’s just a distraction to the real point at hand here.

                                                                                                                                        Okay, so you have “no problem” spending a small portion of the federal budget on environmental issues. Glad we agree on that. It seems like a pretty reasonable stance. So it’s not a pure fiscal concern.

                                                                                                                                        So, you’re worried about the regulations. Do you have factual evidence supporting the idea that these regulations cost “100s of billiions”? How do you know that these regulations haven’t avoided 100s of billions in costs? For instance, if capitalists had it their way the water all over the USA would look like Flint Michigan. But we’ve always had a regulatory system that ensured the water is clean. So, you don’t see the benefits and the millions of diseases and other problems we’ve avoided in the long-term because we take them for granted. It’s virtually impossible to calculate the costs/benefits of environmental policies. So again, I suspect you cannot prove your statement and support it with real evidence.

                                                                                                                                        Or what about the innovation benefits from these regulations? 10 years ago the fossil fuel companies said it was impossible to ever rely on alternatives as our primary fuel sources. But innovation fueled in part by regulations nudged companies to invest in changes. And now the state of CA is generating almost 10% of its power just from solar! This is amazing progress. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if the solar panels on my children’s roofs end up fueling the homes that your children live in.

                                                                                                                                        The OECD has come up with a fairly simple way to calculate the cost/benefit of these regulations. What they show is that countries with high levels of environmental regulation show little to now correlation with broader growth trends.

                                                                                                                                        http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21637411-environmental-regulations-may-not-cost-much-governments-and-businesses

                                                                                                                                        So yeah, this is a messy debate and it’s virtually impossible to calculate the actual costs. But this again strikes me as the exact wrong place to be attacking if you’re worried about “big govt”. I mean, we’re spending 20X more on military spending than we are on environmental stuff. The waste coming out of the Pentagon is colossal. Why are we having debates about the environment when we can’t even quantify the costs/benefits when we know for a FACT, that there is humongous waste in our military????

                                                                                                                                        https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/pentagon-buries-evidence-of-125-billion-in-bureaucratic-waste/2016/12/05/e0668c76-9af6-11e6-a0ed-ab0774c1eaa5_story.html?utm_term=.3d258368c39c

                                                                                                                                        Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                        Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                        Answered on 02/21/2017 12:41 PM
                                                                                                                                          Private answer

                                                                                                                                          Here is my main beef with the EPA an abuse of power:

                                                                                                                                          http://www.speroforum.com/a/BMRIIGYTON33/77944-Wyoming-rancher-saves-property-from-EPA-land-grab#.WKzFbfkrKM8
                                                                                                                                          Look at that 4 min video.
                                                                                                                                          What are they thinking bothering a simple guy on his property with a small stock tank. Unreal abuse of power and it has to be stopped.

                                                                                                                                          As far as the Military waste, well that’s for another debate/discussion.
                                                                                                                                          However, you should be HAPPY :) with President Trump He has already saved tax payers hundreds of millions on the F35 built by Lockheed Martin.. Now that’s WINNING!!!

                                                                                                                                          Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                          Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                          Answered on 02/21/2017 7:29 PM
                                                                                                                                            Private answer

                                                                                                                                            This is the form of argumentation that results in dishonest conclusions. The fact that the EPA wrongfully fined one farmer does not suddenly mean everything the EPA does it bad.

                                                                                                                                            Again, when you’re trying to quantify whether the EPA or any govt agency is good/bad you need to quantify THE AGGREGATE costs/benefits. When you cherry pick these single events you leave yourself open to obvious criticism.

                                                                                                                                            Can you show that the EPA does more harm than good? No, of course you can’t. That’s why you keep referring to empty arguments….

                                                                                                                                            And then the F-35: those cuts by Lockheed had already been announced. Trump just took credit for them because Lockheed played him for a fool.

                                                                                                                                            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/31/trumps-claim-taking-credit-for-cutting-600-million-from-the-f-35-program/?utm_term=.c35731f7f11a

                                                                                                                                            Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                            Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                            Answered on 02/21/2017 8:04 PM
                                                                                                                                              Private answer

                                                                                                                                              From the CEO herself:
                                                                                                                                              “we are close to a deal that will bring the cost down significantly from the previous lot of aircraft to the next lot of aircraft.”
                                                                                                                                              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/01/13/lockheed-martin-ceo-tells-trump-the-cost-of-f-35-will-be-significantly-lower/?utm_term=.4c51d5064aee

                                                                                                                                              So Is she A Liar?

                                                                                                                                              And can you show that the EPA does NO HARM? Nope and that is your “empty” argument. See Animas River spill..

                                                                                                                                              Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                              Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                              Answered on 02/21/2017 9:16 PM
                                                                                                                                                Private answer

                                                                                                                                                Of course the EPA does some harm. That’s the whole point of regulations – to impose burdens and costs in order to deter greater costs. I suspect that the EPA has done society a great service in the long run by holding people and corporations accountable and enforcing the laws so that they treat our waterways and resources better. Just look at China where they’ve let their corporations run rampant and foul up all the water and air. Do you know the social burden that the govt ends up incurring because of costs like that? It’s insane to think that’s okay all in the name of corporate profits.

                                                                                                                                                Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                                Answered on 02/21/2017 9:27 PM
                                                                                                                                                  Private answer

                                                                                                                                                  OK, so now that we have butchered the original intent of this threads topic on “Global Warming” at least can agree that:
                                                                                                                                                  A) Govt through bureaucratic entity arm Can do Good
                                                                                                                                                  B) Govt through bureaucratic entity arm Can do Bad

                                                                                                                                                  Where we differ here (I think) is that you are fine with the harm that is caused at a micro level because in the grand scheme “macro” all is good.
                                                                                                                                                  IOW the end justifies the means.

                                                                                                                                                  I on the other hand disagree to a point and think that the micro (individual) is important with regards to overseeing the means which the Macro gains a benefit.
                                                                                                                                                  I wave caution that the end does not always justify the means when you have bureaucracies with the heavy hand of the federal govt weighing on them.

                                                                                                                                                  Which is why I am a strong supporter of “States Rights”. With a Trump Presidency watch how quick all those do gooder liberals wanted the FED’s involved will now run and holler States Rights States Rights..LOL

                                                                                                                                                  AGAIN, I am fine with using our taxes for programs that help educates us on clean water and air with in reason.
                                                                                                                                                  I however think we must be ever vigilant watching over govt agencies who have carte blanche to destroy a families lives financially because they (the bureaucracy) have been WEAPONIZED by political ideology.
                                                                                                                                                  I.E. Lois Lerner a d The IRS…(dang another ask cullen anything topic)

                                                                                                                                                  Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                  Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                                  Answered on 02/21/2017 10:09 PM
                                                                                                                                                    Private answer

                                                                                                                                                    The reason we got sidetracked was because the original link was total bullshit:

                                                                                                                                                    http://www.snopes.com/2017/02/08/noaa-scientists-climate-change-data/

                                                                                                                                                    “While Karl et al might reasonably be criticized for having been less than rigorous in their data documentation, their findings have been independently verified, contrary to allegations that the authors manipulated data to reach a desired conclusion:

                                                                                                                                                    What David Rose fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results.

                                                                                                                                                    Rose’s claim that NOAA’s results “can never be verified” is patently incorrect, as we just published a paper independently verifying the most important part of NOAA’s results.”

                                                                                                                                                    Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                    Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                                    Answered on 02/21/2017 10:17 PM
                                                                                                                                                      Private answer

                                                                                                                                                      “I on the other hand disagree to a point and think that the micro (individual) is important with regards to overseeing the means which the Macro gains a benefit.”

                                                                                                                                                      This literally misunderstands the role of govt. The role of government is to enact PUBLIC PURPOSE. So, we tax a few to protect all. We regulate a few to protect all. Stuff like that.

                                                                                                                                                      By your definition all govt taxation can be viewed as bad because it hurts an individual. So, you’re either misunderstanding the role of govt within society or you’re just making misinformed arguments to defend a point you can’t support with actual facts.

                                                                                                                                                      Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                      Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                                      Answered on 02/21/2017 10:19 PM
                                                                                                                                                        Private answer

                                                                                                                                                        Uhh Now who is straw manning?
                                                                                                                                                        One of the comments you made YEARS ago when you first started this blog which left an impression on me was when you pointed out (circa conceptually) the errancy of JFK saying ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country when in fact People/States join a Union because of what THEY get out of the deal.
                                                                                                                                                        So tax me or you and what do we get out of the deal? Your fine with big govt I am not.
                                                                                                                                                        You seem OK with what ever the heck Govt decides is “Public Purpose”, I am not.
                                                                                                                                                        You probably live in a city with a million people I do not (10,00+).
                                                                                                                                                        We differ, that’s fine.
                                                                                                                                                        I am grateful we can differ her is humane discourse with out lobbing real missiles at each other.

                                                                                                                                                        But Fear Not, Because soon you folks in Californication will be your own nation when you secede and you can do what ever the heck ya want..
                                                                                                                                                        Good Luck LOL

                                                                                                                                                        Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                        Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                                        Answered on 02/21/2017 10:40 PM
                                                                                                                                                          Private answer

                                                                                                                                                          OH and:
                                                                                                                                                          Forget homogenization, that is so 2010. If the pause is bothering you and your belief is that there must be more warming, we only need to find it in the data, then what you need is “Karlization”, named after director of the National Climatic Data Center, (now NCEI) Tom Karl who pulled a fast one this summer trying to adjust the past down, so the present would be warmer. The sleight of hand on this was so obvious that even warm-oriented scientists such as Michael Mann and Ben Santer co-authored a rebuttal paper that said Karl was dead wrong and the pause was real. There is now a congressional investigation into Mr. Karl’s apparently political actions disguised as science
                                                                                                                                                          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/02/the-karlization-of-global-temperature-continues-this-time-rss-makes-a-massive-upwards-adjustment/

                                                                                                                                                          Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                          Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                                          Answered on 02/21/2017 10:53 PM
                                                                                                                                                            Private answer

                                                                                                                                                            I actually live in rural northern San Diego in a city of 60K. It’s an old farm town. I live on an old avocado grove. So yeah, these personal assumptions and pseudo ad hominems don’t really work on me.

                                                                                                                                                            And while we’re generalizing, let’s also remember one thing while you lob bombs at CA – our economy is growing at 4% per year and we produce most of the fruits and vegetables that the country relies on. That’s in addition to most of the nation’s technology, entertainment and biotech. California can’t secede, but not because we don’t want to leave but because the rest of the USA isn’t half as productive without our output. We won’t secede because the Federal Govt would never let us secede because they know that California is its own amazingly dynamic economy that is far too valuable to let go of. So while you make all of your generalizations about how tree hugging hippies are ruining the world California happens the be the epitome of everything good in the USA. Meanwhile, it's the southern Conservative states that have become the nation's biggest users of welfare with their perennial trade deficits that result in disproportionate amounts of federal funding....:-)

                                                                                                                                                            Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                            Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                                            Answered on 02/21/2017 11:49 PM
                                                                                                                                                              Private answer

                                                                                                                                                              Damn Cullen, that was a burn.

                                                                                                                                                              Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                              Posted by Suvy Boyina
                                                                                                                                                              Answered on 02/22/2017 11:56 PM
                                                                                                                                                                Private answer

                                                                                                                                                                While companies are leaving California en masse My home state of Texas has benifited nice so Hat Tip.
                                                                                                                                                                http://www.spectrumlocationsolutions.com/
                                                                                                                                                                Would be an amazing machine but the progressive democrats control the power so I don’t see super star state status anytime soon.

                                                                                                                                                                Especially with the mindset of allocating water resources for the delta smelt instead of other more practical agricultural purposes.
                                                                                                                                                                I am not sure where California is on that Smelt issue, I know a few years ago when it was in the news it didn’t seem to make a lot of environmental or economic sense.

                                                                                                                                                                The water fuels green crops which remove CO2 and gives off oxy. The fist just take oxy eat and poop creating more fuel for methane hydrates. Bad Co2.

                                                                                                                                                                Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                                Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                                                Answered on 02/23/2017 9:24 AM
                                                                                                                                                                  Private answer

                                                                                                                                                                  Careful Suvy, Research the Colorado River….

                                                                                                                                                                  Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                                  Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                                                  Answered on 02/23/2017 10:18 AM
                                                                                                                                                                    Private answer

                                                                                                                                                                    Hundreds of scientists urge Trump to withdraw from U.N. climate-change agency
                                                                                                                                                                    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/23/hundreds-scientists-urge-trump-withdraw-un-climate/

                                                                                                                                                                    “More than 300 scientists have urged President Trump to withdraw from the U.N.’s climate change agency, warning that its push to curtail carbon dioxide threatens to exacerbate poverty without improving the environment.
                                                                                                                                                                    In a Thursday letter to the president, MIT professor emeritus Richard Lindzen called on the United States and other nations to “change course on an outdated international agreement that targets minor greenhouse gases,” starting with carbon dioxide.”

                                                                                                                                                                    “Challenging the catastrophic climate change narrative, Mr. Lindzen describes carbon dioxide as “plant food, not poison.”

                                                                                                                                                                    Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                                    Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                                                    Answered on 02/25/2017 9:09 AM
                                                                                                                                                                      Private answer

                                                                                                                                                                      I don’t know why you keep bringing up c02 and warming. That’s not the extent of the climate change debate.

                                                                                                                                                                      Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                                      Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                                                      Answered on 02/25/2017 2:48 PM
                                                                                                                                                                        Private answer

                                                                                                                                                                        Cullen, with all due respect bro are you kidding me?

                                                                                                                                                                        The Co2 “HOCKEY STICK” formulated frankenstein created by Michael Mann is a foundational corner stone of this whole doom and gloom were all gonna die unless we do XYZ money pit generating scam.
                                                                                                                                                                        Just Google Co2 climate and see the plethora:
                                                                                                                                                                        https://350.org/
                                                                                                                                                                        “*The number 350 means climate safety: we must reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere from >400 parts per million to below 350.”

                                                                                                                                                                        https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

                                                                                                                                                                        “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an important heat-trapping (greenhouse) gas, which is released through human activities such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels, as well as natural processes such as respiration and volcanic eruptions. The first chart shows atmospheric CO2 levels in recent years, with average seasonal cycle removed. The second chart shows CO2 levels during the last three glacial cycles, as reconstructed from ice cores.”

                                                                                                                                                                        Again, Sound reason says yes humans affect the climate but so do butterflies, bumblebees and fish. However, over the long haul that we have a very good historical record. The SUN is the main driver of the climate. Along with that is Ocean currents and continental drifts (longer periods) which alter Ocean currents over the long haul.

                                                                                                                                                                        Many articles and papers showed this YEARS ago but the mainstream POLITICAL narrative would not let it be released to the masses

                                                                                                                                                                        (2011) New Evidence That Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
                                                                                                                                                                        Does Not Cause Global Warming
                                                                                                                                                                        http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/New%20Evidence%20that%20Man-Made%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20(CO2)%20Does%20Not%20Cause%20Global%20Warming.htm

                                                                                                                                                                        Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                                        Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                                                        Answered on 02/26/2017 11:46 AM
                                                                                                                                                                          Private answer

                                                                                                                                                                          CP,

                                                                                                                                                                          You’re missing the point of the CO2 discussion. Scientists are trying to find out why temps are rising so dramatically. And yes, they are rising. We don’t know why, but we suspect it’s caused by humans and we’re trying to find out why.

                                                                                                                                                                          Your conclusion about C02 is like seeing that Cancer is a problem, discovering that beans don’t cause cancer and then saying Cancer isn’t a problem.

                                                                                                                                                                          The lack of logic in the climate denier side is sometimes astounding….

                                                                                                                                                                          Attachments:
                                                                                                                                                                            Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                                            Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                                                            Answered on 02/26/2017 1:35 PM
                                                                                                                                                                              Private answer

                                                                                                                                                                              Cullen,
                                                                                                                                                                              If i’m missing the “point” it’s because the point keeps “changing” and that is in fact the proverbial “point” here.
                                                                                                                                                                              Cullen, read this fellow, Roy Spencer Climatologist (My Global Warming Skepticism, for Dummies) as I just have. This cat seems to be pretty down the middle on the topic showing no political/personal agenda from what I can tell from my initial read of his work.
                                                                                                                                                                              http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

                                                                                                                                                                              Here is what he says on your warming/rising temps point:

                                                                                                                                                                              “1) Are Global Temperatures Rising Now? There is no way to know, because natural year-to-year variability in global temperature is so large, with warming and cooling occurring all the time. What we can say is that surface and lower atmospheric temperature have risen in the last 30 to 50 years, with most of that warming in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, the magnitude of recent warming is somewhat uncertain, due to problems in making long-term temperature measurements with thermometers without those measurements being corrupted by a variety of non-climate effects. But there is no way to know if temperatures are continuing to rise now…we only see warming (or cooling) in the rearview mirror, when we look back in time.”

                                                                                                                                                                              He is DEAD ON HERE with this statement QUOTE “those measurements being corrupted by a variety of non-climate effects.” BINGO

                                                                                                                                                                              As far as rising temps go there are so many data sets on both sides saying rising and a pause.
                                                                                                                                                                              But from what I have read on the rising front so what, a warming planet is a net benefit because we burn less fuel for warmth (less co2 carbon) and life explodes when it’s warmer.
                                                                                                                                                                              The permafrost tundra in Canada and siberia would come alive AGAIN

                                                                                                                                                                              Think Of It In These Terms:
                                                                                                                                                                              Cullen, can you tell me how the stock market will perform tomorrow, next week/month? Can anyone? Why not, we have decades of human trading patterns across metrics like famine, wars, depressions, recessions booms and bust and all in between So How Accurate can we predict the markets?

                                                                                                                                                                              Now with that introspect how much more can we predict “Climate CHANGE” that has a BIG PLAYER called the SUN that is the defacto Federal Reserve On a Galactic Steroid and is the main Walking Boss of our planets Temp.

                                                                                                                                                                              On A lighter note, it’s enjoyable to debate/discuss while keeping Godwin’s law at bay..LOL

                                                                                                                                                                              Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                                              Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                                                              Answered on 02/27/2017 1:31 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                Private answer

                                                                                                                                                                                Well, yeah, that’s the point I keep making. We don’t really know what’s causing this or if it’s actually a huge problem. But we do know that human beings are causing changes in our air and our water and now we seem to be having some rather unusual temp changes that would be consistent with a much broader and worrisome problem.

                                                                                                                                                                                So, again, what I say is this – there’s reasonable evidence that something worrisome is occurring and that warrants some proactive policies. If we end up being wrong then great. We wasted some money. But if we end up being right then maybe we helped thwart a much larger problem.

                                                                                                                                                                                But we should be clear here – the baseline argument should be about HOW MUCH govt is involved here. Not whether climate change is a problem that warrants action. You and the climate change deniers want to squash the idea that the climate is changing so you can argue that the govt should not be involved. You’re starting from an irrational baseline position that is inconsistent with what the data shows us.

                                                                                                                                                                                And yes, this is all consistent with an intelligent portfolio construction process. I want to hedge against potential risks because there is reasonable evidence of risks. It has nothing to do with whether I can predict the future or not. I want to hedge against what I DON’T KNOW.

                                                                                                                                                                                Ironically, you’re the one making the irrational prediction because you refuse to admit there are risks here. You want to be 100% long stocks without the hedge because you say the hedge is too expensive and based on flimsy evidence. You might be right, but if you’re wrong you’re going to be really really wrong.

                                                                                                                                                                                Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                                                Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                                                                Answered on 02/27/2017 1:42 AM
                                                                                                                                                                                  Private answer

                                                                                                                                                                                  “Well, yeah, that’s the point I keep making. We don’t really know what’s causing this or if it’s actually a huge problem. But we do know that human beings are causing changes in our air and our water and now we seem to be having some rather unusual temp changes that would be consistent with a much broader and worrisome problem.”

                                                                                                                                                                                  Sure we cause change events. But so did the MILLIONS of methane farting Buffalo that roamed the plains BEFORE we killed them off.

                                                                                                                                                                                  “So, again, what I say is this – there’s reasonable evidence that something worrisome is occurring and that warrants some proactive policies. If we end up being wrong then great. We wasted some money. But if we end up being right then maybe we helped thwart a much larger problem.”

                                                                                                                                                                                  Nope, nothing “WORRISOME” is occurring at all. What is “WORRISOME” is how the climate has become politicized by a political group and they use it to try and scare the populace to bend to their views that based on an agenda that uses the strong arm of government to transfer money towards a certain political agenda that benefits a certain business class and emotional aristocracy at the expense of the proletariat.

                                                                                                                                                                                  “But we should be clear here – the baseline argument should be about HOW MUCH govt is involved here. Not whether climate change is a problem that warrants action. You and the climate change deniers want to squash the idea that the climate is changing so you can argue that the govt should not be involved. You’re starting from an irrational baseline position that is inconsistent with what the data shows us.”

                                                                                                                                                                                  Nope AGAIN, I agree, the climate IS Changing BECAUSE IT IS ALWAYS CHANGING, it’s called the WEATHER. I think the Govt SHOULD be involved when it makes sense. For example. I do not think that it wise that we burn our used rubber compound tires by the millions to get rid of them. Grinding them up and making good use of the ground up rubber for repurposed things is a great thing

                                                                                                                                                                                  “And yes, this is all consistent with an intelligent portfolio construction process. I want to hedge against potential risks because there is reasonable evidence of risks. It has nothing to do with whether I can predict the future or not. I want to hedge against what I DON’T KNOW.”

                                                                                                                                                                                  The Hedge for business is simple MAN MADE POLITICS plain and simple from a business portfolio point of view.. Who is in power? Democrats the structure the portfolio this way… Repubs…That way.

                                                                                                                                                                                  “Ironically, you’re the one making the irrational prediction because you refuse to admit there are risks here. You want to be 100% long stocks without the hedge because you say the hedge is too expensive and based on flimsy evidence. You might be right, but if you’re wrong you’re going to be really really wrong.”

                                                                                                                                                                                  Nope, wrong again. Your missing the “Risk Here” because you are not willing to structure a portfolio based upon the world how it ACTUALLY IS (Trump/Republican) and instead are still stuck in how it WAS (OBAMA?DEMOCRATS)
                                                                                                                                                                                  The Winds Have Changed Me’Boy…

                                                                                                                                                                                  Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                                                  Posted by Cowpoke
                                                                                                                                                                                  Answered on 02/27/2017 11:34 PM
                                                                                                                                                                                    Private answer

                                                                                                                                                                                    You just compared buffalo farts to fossil fuel emissions. Is this really the level of analysis we’re using in these discussions? Is that really something you expect anyone in the whole fucking universe to take seriously? What’s next? Nuclear bombs aren’t dangerous because meteors are dangerous? I mean, if this is the level of critical thinking going on here then I am going to shut these threads down. Next time, stick to facts and data and not opinions about the “winds of change” (fart pun very much intended).

                                                                                                                                                                                    Marked as spam
                                                                                                                                                                                    Cullen Roche Posted by Cullen Roche
                                                                                                                                                                                    Answered on 02/28/2017 1:29 AM