<blockquote>Making more money is a direction while making X more dollars is a goal</blockquote>“</i>Making more money</i>” is <b>not</b> a “</i>direction</i>”. It is, at best, a <b>criterion</b> by which to judge the value of “</i>direction</i>”.
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by AK
↧
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by Arch Stanton
There will be no peace until the Age of Grace, has come to a conclusion. At least that is what I have read. So I am always a firm believer in sustainability first and foremost.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by mwgrant
My original comment was a question.
To me a goal is needed to set a direction and is more abstract. Making more money is a goal and implementing a specific business plan is setting a direction and includes specifying a target value [your ‘goal’]. To me a direction is a response effecting movement toward a goal. For me goals can be set higher than expectations. Also in my frame of reference setting a direction without a goal can be a risky short-cut.
In particular my original reference the term ‘goals’ then refers to striving to reaching a goal even though in reality expectations may be low. In plain English I decline to automatically defer to pessimism. The latter in the context of decision-making is a prescription for an irrational ‘lack of action’. [However, rational lack of action is not precluded.]
Still there no need to parse labels to death here, David.
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by Jim D
I come here for one side of the issue, and it is the minority side, and I go to HuffPost or RealClimate, etc., for the other which is a majority view. This is how I get a balanced view. I link the other side of issues here via some good articles and op-eds there, as you would only see WSJ op-eds otherwise, which is far from balanced. Judith does put up mainstream pieces as part of Week in Review, such as the recent not-so-rosy Antarctica picture, some promising new energy technology advances, and also we saw the AMS criticism of Smith here, so it is not all one-sided for sure, but also not giving a perspective of the importance of those items that you would see elsewhere.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by Joseph
I think the problem with the so-called war on poverty was that it was assumed poverty could be eliminated in the foreseeable future (if at all) and that welfare programs alone could end poverty.
I think welfare programs should be considered more of safety net and that they are necessary because poverty exists and these people need help. But if you have some magical plan that will end poverty so we don’t need welfare programs then I am all ears.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by climatereason
Jimd
I for one welcome your input here but many of us are much better read than you seem to believe.
Tonyb
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by mwgrant
popesclimatetheory wrote:
MW show me a model of Climate that does work right and can reproduce the climate of the past ten thousand years. Short term correlation does not prove that anything works.
I did not say that there are climate models that work or that there are models that don’t work. I said:
Also the statement “there are no Models of Climate that work” doesn’t work.
What do I mean by that. We all know that models have limitations and that those limitations depend on context. IMO then a statement that “there are no Models of Climate that work” not very informative or useful. That is why such statements do not work.
Even dismissing a model requires sufficient context and explanation. All this broad brush whining about models in blogs has worn thin and even frankly appears somewhat specious.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by mwgrant
As a matter of fact I had quickly looked at the bigger document before commenting and felt that the same observations apply.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by ordvic
Right, good point.
↧
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by mwgrant
I would hope that not decision-maker defers to a [decision] model. As noted elsewhere and in previous posts the purpose of models–and yes even decision models–is to inform the decision. For example, one way such a tool might inform a decision-maker/decision-makers is that it might temper the effects of over optimistic and under optimistic perspectives advanced on particular policy alternatives. :O)
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by mwgrant
<i>This sort of analysis is only applicable if one desires more government programs. </i>
Presumptive bunk used to complain about the government. Why not just complain about the government without the first sentence, or better yet develop the argument for the first sentence. In any case the tie between the first sentence and that which follows is not immediately obvious.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by Don Monfort
That’s a snide comment that just shows your lack of seriousness on the issue, yoey. I didn’t say or imply that there are magical plans. No use in discussing policy with you. I could tell you what you could do personally to actually make a difference in some poor folk’s lives, but I don’t see any indication that you have the inclination or the guts to go for it.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by -1=e^iπ
Maybe 13.9 C is an underestimate. Tsutsui only did a parabolic model of happiness as a function of temperature; perhaps a cubic model would have been better.
↧
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by ordvic
No, sorry, I really meant it. Disarms my whole argument just about. Desirability of the planet close to this goldilocks climate, I would think, was self evident as far as human welfare but the AGW thing is still arguable and perhaps, as they always point out (on both sides), having a little extra CO2 may help with the next Milankovitch ice period. So you’re calculations that include the various perspectives may be the only solution here. However as I said I don’t think you can namby pamby about if CO2 really is a present threat so stopping emissions would take drastic measures.
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by ordvic
no sarcasm replied below
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by JCH
Yes, us pinko commie dictator lovin’ liberal barbarians are winning!
↧
Comment on Decision making under uncertainty – maximize expected social welfare by ordvic
OTOH, If a solution included, as I suggest’ a big dose of nuclear the greens would say ‘no it doesn’t’ renewables are the key.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by Jonathan Abbott
Excellent link, Don.
Greenpeace should be demanding Obama’s head on a spike.
If they were an ecological instead of a political organisation, that is.
↧
Comment on Week in review – Paris edition by Don Monfort
Not all the pinko commie dictator lovin’ liberal barbarians think they are are winning. Here’s a raving alarmist who has a realistic view of the bad deal that will come out of the soiree in Paree:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-climate-conference-20151130-story.html
↧
Comment on Deep de-carbonisation of electricity grids by ordvic
Those pesky Skeptics won’t go away:
“Skeptical Climate Documentary Set to Rock UN Climate Summit – ‘Climate Hustle’ To Have Red Carpet Premiere in Paris”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
