Re: this Russia thing with Trump and Russia
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:33 pm
repoman - Your posts reek of hyperbole and misinformation. Why would you put stock in something posted on reddit? Do you even know who the self-appointed expert who wrote it was? Here are some criticisms of the Stern Review from the same wikipedia page that person quoted.
[...] investments in mitigation that cannot even earn a positive rate of return will be worth far less to future generations than those same dollars invested in the market. Placing climate change before investments in other important nonmarket services such as conservation, health, education, security, and transportation also cannot be justified in the name of future generations. From the perspective of future generations, it is in their interest that all investments earn the same rate of return. The ethical justification for intentionally overspending on selective projects with low rates of return is weak indeed .
[...] in my opinion, Stern deserves a measure of discredit for giving readers an authoritative-looking impression that seemingly objective best-available-practice professional economic analysis robustly supports its conclusions, instead of more openly disclosing the full extent to which the Review's radical policy recommendations depend upon controversial extreme assumptions and unconventional discount rates that most mainstream economists would consider much too low
You seem to be claiming that thousands of atmospheric scientists, worldwide, are involved in a conspiracy, or that they are all a bunch of bumbling incompetents. Those claims would be laughable, if they weren't so disturbingly anti-intellectual in an age of political anti-intellectualism.
The fact is that climate change has been politicized by big money interests like the coal industry, that just don't want to see their bottom lines hurt by regulations. It seems oddly ironic that when the depletion of the ozone layer was discovered, the world came together to ban CFCs. But today, our society has become so greed-driven that these people don't even care if we make the planet unlivable for our kids, as long as they continue to get richer and richer.
I suggest that you actually try to arrange to speak to an atmospheric scientist. Discuss your concerns, and let them explain the science to you. If there is one thing you will never see, it is a right wing politician do that. They will debate the issue with other laymen, but you will never see one try to debate global warming with a real scientist who has spent years, or even decades, rigorously studying the subject.
[...] investments in mitigation that cannot even earn a positive rate of return will be worth far less to future generations than those same dollars invested in the market. Placing climate change before investments in other important nonmarket services such as conservation, health, education, security, and transportation also cannot be justified in the name of future generations. From the perspective of future generations, it is in their interest that all investments earn the same rate of return. The ethical justification for intentionally overspending on selective projects with low rates of return is weak indeed .
[...] in my opinion, Stern deserves a measure of discredit for giving readers an authoritative-looking impression that seemingly objective best-available-practice professional economic analysis robustly supports its conclusions, instead of more openly disclosing the full extent to which the Review's radical policy recommendations depend upon controversial extreme assumptions and unconventional discount rates that most mainstream economists would consider much too low
You seem to be claiming that thousands of atmospheric scientists, worldwide, are involved in a conspiracy, or that they are all a bunch of bumbling incompetents. Those claims would be laughable, if they weren't so disturbingly anti-intellectual in an age of political anti-intellectualism.
The fact is that climate change has been politicized by big money interests like the coal industry, that just don't want to see their bottom lines hurt by regulations. It seems oddly ironic that when the depletion of the ozone layer was discovered, the world came together to ban CFCs. But today, our society has become so greed-driven that these people don't even care if we make the planet unlivable for our kids, as long as they continue to get richer and richer.
I suggest that you actually try to arrange to speak to an atmospheric scientist. Discuss your concerns, and let them explain the science to you. If there is one thing you will never see, it is a right wing politician do that. They will debate the issue with other laymen, but you will never see one try to debate global warming with a real scientist who has spent years, or even decades, rigorously studying the subject.
