slngsht Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 http://ajae.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/24/ajae.aau001.abstract from the American Journal of Agricultural Economics Abstract It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondo Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 The news media exaggerating? Shirley not:) , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NVP66S Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 The news media exaggerating? Shirley not:) , Climate change enthusiasm and the doomsaying that goes along with it is far bigger than the news media. It's trivially easy to debunk just by looking at the past billion years of climate and CO2 levels. http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/grand-view-4-billion-years-climate-change We've had Glaciers in Pennsylvania when the CO2 level was higher. The enthusiasts like to repeat that "97% of climate scientists agree..." First, that number came from a poll of fewer than 100 climate scientists and those chosen to participate were already in the AGW camp. Second, appeal to authority has had many, many examples in the past of being wrong. Frenetics is a recent example, and Galileo's heliocentric solar syatem is a famous example. Third, appeal to authority is not part of the scientific method. If it doesn't welcome skepticism, it's not science. If one person can repeatably show it fails, that's it, end of theory. That's how science works. Feynman on Scientific Method. - YouTube Richard Feynman was one of the greatest scientists ever, and he took time to lecture an intro to Physics class. I still have copies of his lectures. The future climate projections are based on computer models, not data, and those models are tightly held secrets. Freedom Of Information requests have been turned down by the University of East Anglia and University of Virginia where the models originated. Hiding your source is not science. But let's just for argument say the the smart people should know and we have to follow them. OK, here's 1300 peer reviewed papers saying it's not a problem. http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Or how about 31,000 engineers and scientists including 9000 PhDs calling baloney? They're listed here: http://www.petitionproject.org/ I can't sign it because I work for a company that has some government contracts, and yes, I have personal experience with government agencies' vengeful tactics. Or how about a look into the daily conversations between the "leading" scientists? Here's an annotated dump of professional emails: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf It's a real eye-opener to the tactics used to crush skepticism or honest questioning. The AGW enthusiasts respond by claiming that those emails were acquired illegally. Maybe they were, probably not, but nobody claims they are not real. Sorry for the rant :cuss: but I think the belief in AGW is undermining real science, and doing mankind a huge disservice. But, hey, Americans voted to install the community organizer that campaigned in 2008 saying: "Under my administration, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" OK, I'm done ranting. Let's talk about cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoPho Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 There is nothing "settled", the naysayers twist the data to fit their agenda just the same, it's political and it's all about which side of the coin you chose to believe. ....and doing mankind a huge disservice. Really? How is it a disservice to clean up pollution and try to create a better environment? Personally, I don't know whether global warming is real or not and don't really care to argue one way or another, but as I see it, if it turns out to be real and we don't act on it, we're fucked. If it turns out not to be real and we acted on it, the worst that happens is some people had to spend money, some new jobs and new technology were created, we have a cleaner environment, better air, and we go on our way. Doesn't seem like a disservice to me http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manshoon11 Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 Personally, I don't know whether global warming is real or not and don't really care to argue one way or another, but as I see it, if it turns out to be real and we don't act on it, we're fucked. If it turns out not to be real and we acted on it, the worst that happens is some people had to spend money, some new jobs and new technology were created, we have a cleaner environment, better air, and we go on our way. Doesn't seem like a disservice to me http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif . What would that money have been used for otherwise? Does money that government doesn't take from you not go to creating jobs and technology, but doing so far more efficiently? If the goal is to clean up the air and environment, then why not have that be the stated goal......... oops http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do already have that stated goal. Further, you ignore the cost to economic development if we were to do enough to slow down the growth in greenhouse gases. We absolutely need to get the science right first. Then it is a debate for economists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee break Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 We absolutely need to get the science right first. Then it is a debate for economists. It would take a few thousand IBM Watson computers to model the atmosphere, oceans, vegetation and mans inputs to get a result. Then the debate would be what data to input, tree rings anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoPho Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 What would that money have been used for otherwise? Does money that government doesn't take from you not go to creating jobs and technology, but doing so far more efficiently? If the goal is to clean up the air and environment, then why not have that be the stated goal......... oops http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/our-mission-and-what-we-do already have that stated goal. Further, you ignore the cost to economic development if we were to do enough to slow down the growth in greenhouse gases. We absolutely need to get the science right first. Then it is a debate for economists. You sure seem to be putting a lot of words in my mouth . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slomove Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 The political polarization has completely abolished rational discourse (just like gun laws or health care). It is not anymore about facts or science. The conservative side tries feverishly to find reasons this is a conspiracy and liberal setup (see this post) while the progressive side tries about as feverishly to rationalize sometimes fuzzy science. While I lean to believing the current climate trajectory (especially the speed of change) is mainly man-made, I gave up on believing we can do much about it a long time ago. I appreciate all serious conservation efforts but more as an entrepreneurial drive and not so much for the effect. In terms of economic effects, I believe the net outcome will be neutral or maybe slightly positive. Starting new things usually creates more jobs, opportunities and financial benefits than clinging to yesterday's technology and ideas (ask the US textile or furniture industry). Maybe I am a selfish person but I keep burning gasoline in my Seven. Otherwise the Chinese will do that for me and there is no difference for the climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manshoon11 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 You sure seem to be putting a lot of words in my mouth . Then don't act like there is no downside to government spending on a non-problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoPho Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 (edited) Then don't act like there is no downside to government spending on a non-problem. Uh, where did I mention anything about government spending? I said "We" meaning everyone, globally even. Now if you hadn't been so quick to pull the ole blame the government for everything routine you might have noticed that I had not ignored the economic cost of it and that I had made the same point as Slomove did :seeya: . Edited April 6, 2014 by MoPho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manshoon11 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Uh, where did I mention anything about government spending? I said "We" meaning everyone, globally even. Now if you hadn't been so quick to pull the ole blame the government for everything routine you might have noticed that I had not ignored the economic cost of it and that I had made the same point as Slomove did :seeya: You're a slippery critter. Although, you have now made the distinction between government and "we", noted. Show me how you did not ignore the economic cost on wasting money of a non-problem... Really? How is it a disservice to clean up pollution and try to create a better environment? Personally, I don't know whether global warming is real or not and don't really care to argue one way or another, but as I see it, if it turns out to be real and we don't act on it, we're fucked. If it turns out not to be real and we acted on it, the worst that happens is some people had to spend money, some new jobs and new technology were created, we have a cleaner environment, better air, and we go on our way. Doesn't seem like a disservice to me http://www.websmileys.com/sm/sad/533.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share Posted April 6, 2014 There is nothing "settled" No? send him an email Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoPho Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 (edited) You're a slippery critter. Although, you have now made the distinction between government and "we", noted. Show me how you did not ignore the economic cost on wasting money of a non-problem... Not slippery, just expect you to actually read what I wrote What part did of "...the worst that happens is some people had to spend money, some new jobs and new technology were created" did you not understand? i.e some would lose money, some would make money (AKA same shit different day) Now on the other hand, you ignore the economic GAIN of such changes. And it's only a "non-problem" in your opinion, many disagree with you. To add, many great things came out of trying to solve "non problems" . Edited April 6, 2014 by MoPho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manshoon11 Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Pathetic attempt to re-write history and a display of complete ignorance of economics. "...the worst that happens is some people had to spend money, some new jobs and new technology were created" did you not understand? i.e some would lose money, some would make money (AKA same shit different day) . What you originally stated is not analogous to "some would lose money, some would make money " Now on the other hand, you ignore the economic GAIN of such changes. You're so cool. :rofl: If you are talking about this, then I have no such dispute. It shows the free market doing what it does best. And it's only a "non-problem" in your opinion, many disagree with you. I thought it was obvious, but I can clear it up. We were talking about the economic impact of spending money on AGW, even if it "turned out not to be real" To add, many great things came out of trying to solve "non problems" Yes, you are hopelessly incapable of looking beyond the seen to what is not seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share Posted April 6, 2014 The political polarization has completely abolished rational discourse (just like gun laws or health care). It is not anymore about facts or science. The conservative side tries feverishly to find reasons this is a conspiracy and liberal setup (see this post) while the progressive side tries about as feverishly to rationalize sometimes fuzzy science. While I lean to believing the current climate trajectory (especially the speed of change) is mainly man-made, I gave up on believing we can do much about it a long time ago. I appreciate all serious conservation efforts but more as an entrepreneurial drive and not so much for the effect. In terms of economic effects, I believe the net outcome will be neutral or maybe slightly positive. Starting new things usually creates more jobs, opportunities and financial benefits than clinging to yesterday's technology and ideas (ask the US textile or furniture industry). Maybe I am a selfish person but I keep burning gasoline in my Seven. Otherwise the Chinese will do that for me and there is no difference for the climate. how is pointing out a paper that calls for benefits of "asymmetric information" a conspiracy theory? If I told you an average Caterham must suck in performance with only 200 hp, would you not respond that because it only weighs 1000 lbs, that's not a full picture, and here is how it stacks up against some high horsepower cars? This is not just a one-off instance - if it were, it could be easily brushed aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoPho Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 (edited) Pathetic attempt to re-write history and a display of complete ignorance of economics. I am rewriting History now?! WTF? Dang, you must have some good dope :rofl: What you originally stated is not analogous to "some would lose money, some would make money " OK what did I say then? You're so cool. If you are talking about this, then I have no such dispute. It shows the free market doing what it does best. Huh? I thought it was obvious, but I can clear it up. We were talking about the economic impact of spending money on AGW, even if it "turned out not to be real" No YOU were trying to bait the discussion to be about the economic impact. I merely pointed out that I believe that the benefits of doing something outweighs the negatives regardless of whether global warming is true or not. PERIOD! It shouldn't have been that hard to for you to understand had you not been so determined to jump to conclusions and pick a fight over something I didn't say. Yes, you are hopelessly incapable of looking beyond the seen to what is not seen. Right back at you chief . Edited April 6, 2014 by MoPho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rikker Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 what? who? where was it what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share Posted April 6, 2014 I merely pointed out that I believe that the benefits of doing something outweighs the negatives regardless of whether global warming is true or not. PERIOD! That's a harmless enough statement. How does one decide what that something is? based on being presented with facts? Are electric cars better for the environment than gasoline ones when you take the full life cycle of battery production into account. I honestly don't know the answer. I think yes. I'd like to believe that, but what source can I use to get actually true information? Should I be a good citizen and believe a "scientific" community that has no problem with providing "asymmetric information"? Do you realize how absurd it is for a news or scientific group to openly admit they're not objective and that's a good thing? or should I just trust a government that tells me there are 46 million uninsured, and 7.1 million got coverage due to their newest "something" that they did, when I know both numbers are vastly exaggerated? When they are pretty much determined to drive coal out of business no matter how much coal plants are cleaned up. Tell me, is it better to continue importing oil for transportation while improving gas mileage, or building nuclear and coal plants and accelerate development of electric cars? Is it better overall to leave energy taxes at their current level, or raising them? double, triple, quadruple, ten fold? They're all doing something, but which is the best way? Does the government have an obligation to lay out what they want to do and why? Or are you ok with "vote on it before you read it" mentality? Do you question anything you hear from government, environmental groups or unions? I question their "facts", as well as big business "facts". If you do question them, post them up in a topic here and enlighten us - and I don't mean that in a mocking way. I'm open to learning new points of view when they're supported by facts and logic. how much value is there in "doing something is better than nothing"? What is YOUR opinion about "something"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share Posted April 6, 2014 what? who? where was it what? something someone somewhere something it's all good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slngsht Posted April 6, 2014 Author Share Posted April 6, 2014 That is VERY cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts