Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

-1=e^iπ,

Empirical studies have found very often that the results contradict every known model of risk perception. More specifically I do not believe that the popularity of risky free time activities is consistent with typical risk attitudes that apply to other decision making. Choosing a model that explains the popularity of risky activities within a significant, but small, subgroup of people is likely to lead to wrong conclusions in other applications.

The ubiquity of failures of models of attitudes towards risks tells probably that the whole approach has serious problems. All the models have actually been chosen more based on practical reasons (they have some nice analytical properties and they allow for deriving some quantitative results) rather than understanding that supports their validity. Using such models may still be the best we can do, but we should be aware of the great arbitrariness that’s always involved in such calculations.


Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by Pekka Pirilä

$
0
0

Jim,

I’m not discussing 1$ vs. 2$, but rather 40$/ton(CO2) or even 200$/ton(CO2).

The highest numbers are surely not net costs in an optimally operating economic system, but rather marginal incentives needed to get changes done. High incentives lead, however, almost unavoidably to action that has a net cost comparable to the level of incentive even in situations where some other action would have the same net effect with a much lower net cost. This is one of the reasons that makes me extremely doubtful of the estimates presented in WG3, but not the only one as also some other assumptions made there are highly suspect.

Comment on Decision strategies for uncertain, complex situations by AK

$
0
0

@-1=e^iπ…

I called it a Ricardian approach, because that has been used in the literature (https://ideas.repec.org/p/cwl/cwldpp/1010.html) to describe similar methods.

The article you linked is only concerned with agricultural productivity. Typical of Ricardo, who didn’t really understand the Industrial Revolution, much less technology and its effect on same.

Basically, you want to explain why different places on Earth have different levels of economic output. So using empirical data, you want to try to estimate the effect on economic output due to climate, physical capital, human capital, technology, demographics, population density, etc. (anything that you think is relevant, throw it in as an explanatory factor).

Color me skeptical. In fact, very very skeptical. The approach you’re outlining includes some highly unwarranted assumptions.

What about the effect of climate and other geography on political factors? What about the fact that the Industrial Revolution was invented in a cool-temperate climate, and its spread to other climates may have been delayed or otherwise impacted due to climate-mediated cultural differences? (An example might be the full work-day, unbroken by the “siesta” common in Mediterranean climates.)

Given that many different explanatory factors are roughly log-linear with GDP per capita, this makes estimating the impact of climate on social welfare relatively easy with a logarithmic utility function.

Relatively easy but likely incorrect. How do you justify your assumption that it is correct, other than argument by flawed analogy?

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D

$
0
0

Can you predict the fossil fuel markets decades ahead? We don’t know whether it will be cheaper to not be using them in the 2050’s, or if green energy and nuclear prices will undercut them anyway. Whatever happens to those, it does not seem that there is a path where energy can be much more expensive than now, and if there is, the skeptics need to point it out as a specific warning rather than say don’t even try.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

$
0
0

Absolutely Stanton. These lies are not unique to the U.S. I posted an article recently that comes to mind; Lies, Damn Lies, and Green Statistics. The left has proven to have great capability in gerrymandering numbers to represent a fraction of true costs. But that’s standard operating procedure, even with numbers used in science.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by brentns1

$
0
0

How to Counter Religion’s Toxic Effects

Wilson’s classic, On Human Nature, challenges the world’s science enterprise to explore the underlying genetic and cultural determinants of religion, which, he argues, “are powerful, ineradicable, and at the center of human social existence.” Wilson contends that the human mind necessarily creates morality, religion, and mythology and empowers them with emotional force. “When blind ideologies and religious beliefs are stripped away,” he theorizes, “others are quickly manufactured as replacements.” His strategy for countering toxic religion then is to rationally harness what he calls the “mythopoeic drive” to inspire humanistic social outcomes and to concede that “scientific materialism is itself a mythology defined in the noble sense.”

Wilson’s newest book, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth illustrates a way to harness the mythopoeic drive. The book takes the form of a letter to an imagined Southern Baptist preacher from whom he seeks cooperation on dealing with global environmental threats. His strategy here makes no attempt to change the pastor’s commitment to God’s revealed word. Rather, he redirects the pastor’s understanding of scripture as creating a duty to save humanity from global warming. The implied logic here is that God loves humanity and wants us to save ourselves from self-created threats. But to earn the preacher’s trust Wilson must concede that he too shares the mythopoeic drive. In order to cooperate, he and the pastor must learn to understand and tolerate the fact that each must make decisions that align with their respective mythic frameworks. Thus Wilson reduces the philosophical chasm to a routine matter of religious tolerance in a pluralistic society. He is then able to say to the pastor: “You and I are humanists in the broadest sense: human welfare is at the center of our thought.” And while the book is Wilson’s monologue, we can imagine the pastor responding: “You and I are God-fearing in the broadest sense because we care about humanity’s future.”

At this point some readers may wonder, what in the world is going on here? Does Dennett really believe that the scientific study of religion will empower us to make secular humanists out of committed Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Muslims-however “gently and firmly” we argue? Does Wilson really believe that science has mythic premises, and that his Baptist pastor is a humanist? Have these honored senior humanists somehow lost their way down a primrose path?
http://thehumanist.com/magazine/may-june-2007/features/how-to-counter-religions-toxic-effects

E.O. Wilson Genetic Destiny
We have to recognize the power of religion, but we need to have ritual without God. That, to me, is very unsatisfactory. We need a real myth. The one I adopted is scientific materialism as a mythology and whatever we can make of it.
http://www.astralgia.com/webportfolio/omnimoment/archives/interviews/wilson.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/25/apocalyptic-fear-mongering-sometimes-rush-limbaugh-is-right/#comment-1972315

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by jungletrunks (@jungletrunks)

$
0
0

The previous article being of German origin.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by JCH

$
0
0

El Nino is currently forecast to last through the end of 2015 and into the NH spring, 2016.

Who knows?

It can be back-to-back, so we could have El Nino again the 2017. Lol. Talk about a misery of skeptics.


Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jim D

$
0
0

The interagency panel also used international studies.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by Jeff Corwith

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Danny Thomas

$
0
0

Looks like a very good place to post. Interesting links to follow included and will do so.
Thanks for the link.
Will be interesting to see the feedback from the activist side.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by AK

$
0
0
<blockquote>Whatever happens to those, it does not seem that there is a path where energy can be much more expensive than now, [...]</blockquote>Wrong! There are plenty of “<i>path</i>[s]<i> where energy can be much more expensive than now,</i>” including just about any “<i>path</i>” where government is allowed to interfere at random. By which I mean almost any interference, since government has an abysmal track record of predicting the outcome of its <strike>intervention </strike>interference.<blockquote>[...] and if there is, the skeptics need to point it out as a specific warning rather than say don’t even try.</blockquote>Nope. Any government interference is guilty <strike>until proven innocent</strike>.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by beththeserf

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by brentns1

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by brentns1


Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by justinwonder

$
0
0

brentns1

I think this statement is false:

“… human welfare is at the center of our thought…”

That is an assumption and possibly a projection.

What are the “toxic effects” of religion?

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by JCH

$
0
0

Green policies in the wirer of 2013-2014 resulted in a very low number of winter deaths. Good to see they’ve altered their green and mean policies and are back to murdering the elderly in record numbers.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by matthewrmarler

$
0
0

Yesterday, July 18, San Diego county received a little more than an inch of rain, making July 2015 the rainiest July in recorded history for the county. Today we received 2 more inches.

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by brentns1

$
0
0

@Justinwonder
That article was by a secular humanist describing a strategy how to coopt traditional religions (which they disdain) to their purposes.
CAGW is the primary mythology for that purpose.

E.O. Wilson Quotes
“Science and religion are the two most powerful forces in the world. Having them at odds… is not productive.”
“People need a sacred narrative. They must have a sense of larger purpose, in one form or another, however intellectualized. They will find a way to keep ancestral spirits alive”
“The creation myth is a Darwinian device for survival.”
― Edward O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth
“If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the environment would collapse into chaos.”
― Edward O. Wilson
“Possibly here in the Holocene, or just before 10 or 20 thousand years ago, life hit a peak of diversity. Then we appeared. We are the great meteorite.”
― Edward O. Wilson
“I will argue that every scrap of biological diversity is priceless, to be learned and cherished, and never to be surrendered without a struggle.”
― Edward O. Wilson

“The predisposition to religious belief is an ineradicable part of human behavior. Mankind has produced 100,000 religions. It is an illusion to think that scientific humanism and learning will dispel religious belief. Men would rather believe than know… A kind of Darwinistic survival of the fittest has occurred with religions… The ecological principle called Gause’s law holds that competition is maximal between species with identical needs… Even submission to secular religions such as Communism and guru cults involve willing subordination of the individual to the group. Religious practices confer biological advantage. The mechanisms of religion include (1) objectification (the reduction of reality to images and definitions that are easily understood and cannot be refuted), (2) commitment through faith (a kind of tribalism enacted through self-surrender), (3) and myth (the narratives that explain the tribe’s favored position on the earth, often incorporating supernatural forces struggling for control, apocalypse, and millennium).”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/04/an-ecologists-perspective-on-pope-franciss-encyclical-letter/#comment-1979059

E.O Wilson believes in carrying capacity limited to 200 million humans, and that human life should not be accorded an unique value. ( That’s what the biodiversity agenda is about.)

(Suzuki)
“I once asked the great ecologist E.O.Wilson how many people the planet could sustain indefinitely. He responded, “If you want to live like North Americans, 200 million.” North Americans, Europeans, Japanese, and Australians, who make up 20 per cent of the world’s population, are consuming more than 80 per cent of the world’s resources. We are the major predators and despoilers of the planet, and so we blame the problem on overpopulation.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/17/climate-change-is-sucking-funding-away-from-biodiversity/#comment-1664385

Comment on Week in review – energy and policy edition by mosomoso

$
0
0

Instead of nation states they form a dirigiste empire. The (very) disparate parts can be connected by a vague green religion and only a vague idea of what new pottiness is being imposed by intellectuals in Brussels or Strasbourg. A Peronist pope will be the perfect spiritual overseer. Eurovision provides the cultural bonding.

Viewing all 148511 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images