Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

[jk]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

Lukester: Serious question.

In the current climate of the international debate (no pun intended), do you think there was ANY chance the IPCC members could have won the Nobel Peace prize if they had come to any other conclusion about global warming?

this question may be serious in intent, but i question its relevance. whether the conclusion is politically correct is irrelevant, scientifically, to whether it is accurate.

yes, there is a sociology of science. some physicists believe, for example, that string theory has come to dominate cosmology to an inappropriate degree because of the elegance of its mathematics, albeit in the absence of empirical support. the string theorists have come to dominate committees determining funding, and so the process goes. but whether this sociological process is skewing research and funding decisions given the current state of our knowledge, doesn't tell us whether our knowledge in the future will come to support or refute its assertions.

i have not read about global warming. i have seen al gore's movie. i make no claim to insight. but i have the following observations, one political and the other methodological:

1. the "skepticism" about global warming serves certain political and economic interests, and those interests - including those of the international energy industries - are in fact much more powerful than the elite interests served by global warming theorists. further, i am bothered by the "skepticism"s resemblance to the tobacco industry's long-held [and self-interested] "skepticism" about the health effects of cigarettes. again, however, i state that these interests have no ultimate bearing on the science.

2. when i entertain an investment concept, i ask myself: "what if i am wrong? what is the cost of error?" it is this question that makes me lean toward support of the warming theorists, ignorant as i know myself to be. if they are wrong, we are merely being wasteful in following their advice. if they are right, we are being dangerously irresponsible in ignoring their advice.

as for your banker's visit to your company, i would say it performed a useful function. we will never know how y2k might have played out had the possibility of disaster been ignored. we do know that the warnings served to crank up a lot of effort, and that disaster was averted. we can draw no conclusions, and can merely be happy that there was in fact no problem.

warnings serve a function in helping avoid danger. their success lies in the ABSENCE of certain events that might never have happened anyway. unfortunately, this is also why the cautious avoidance of risk is rarely rewarded. stan o'neil made the abysmal decision to take merril deep into the subprime business late in the game. charles prince of citibank said that as long as the music played, he had to dance. shortly thereafter the music stopped and he discovered in no longer had the chairman's chair in which to sit. but had he sat out the dance, had he been the type of individual to sit out the dance, he would never have gotten to be chairman, i believe.

[rabot10]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

[quote=Lukester;20265]GLOBAL WARMING - FACT OR FICTION - A FOLLOW UP TO AN ITULIP DISCUSSION FROM JULY / AUGUST



I << Frequency of weather-related disasters

---

Hey what got my attention was the "insect infestation" I moved to Florida a few years ago from California and man do we have some insect infestation. My God U people have not seen bugs like this!!

Whatever the science is I don't care. The amount of oil being used can only lead to a bad ending. Just the way I see it.

[GRG55]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

this question may be serious in intent, but i question its relevance. whether the conclusion is politically correct is irrelevant, scientifically, to whether it is accurate.

yes, there is a sociology of science. some physicists believe, for example, that string theory has come to dominate cosmology to an inappropriate degree because of the elegance of its mathematics, albeit in the absence of empirical support. the string theorists have come to dominate committees determining funding, and so the process goes. but whether this sociological process is skewing research and funding decisions given the current state of our knowledge, doesn't tell us whether our knowledge in the future will come to support or refute its assertions.

i have not read about global warming. i have seen al gore's movie. i make no claim to insight. but i have the following observations, one political and the other methodological:

1. the "skepticism" about global warming serves certain political and economic interests, and those interests - including those of the international energy industries - are in fact much more powerful than the elite interests served by global warming theorists. further, i am bothered by the "skepticism"s resemblance to the tobacco industry's long-held [and self-interested] "skepticism" about the health effects of cigarettes. again, however, i state that these interests have no ultimate bearing on the science..

I don't agree.

The conventional energy industry is a huge "old economy" sector within what is referred to here as the production economy. But even it is miniscule in comparison with the FIRE economy, and its interests. I think that the fact that we are not hearing about energy companies suffering financial setbacks from credit instruments gone bad demonstrates just how separate it has been from what's been going on in the global economy.

We can be quite certain that carbon trading and many other outcomes of the global warming responses, many legislatively supported, will be concentrated to the highest degree possible within a resurrected FIRE economy, and the FIRE economy elite will benefit the most. I think the ranks of "the elite interests served by global warming" are multiplying rapidly in recognition of this. They will have far more influence over policy, subsidies, handouts, tariff protections, tax advantages, and so forth than anything going in the production economy, including energy interests.

2. when i entertain an investment concept, i ask myself: "what if i am wrong? what is the cost of error?" it is this question that makes me lean toward support of the warming theorists, ignorant as i know myself to be. if they are wrong, we are merely being wasteful in following their advice. if they are right, we are being dangerously irresponsible in ignoring their advice..

Unfortunately this is not like Y2K with a defined time frame and a clear, measurable outcome of success or failure (and, thankfully, a term-limit to the insanity and waste of resources).

In this instance we do not know what level of intervention is sufficient to solve the problem, or adequately mitigate its effects (itself implying two differing solution sets). We seem to know more about the size of the problem than we do about the size of the solution; even the most passionate and seeminlgy informed advocates diverge greatly on the latter. All we seem to be able to agree on is that the solution will be a massive effort, it will be ongoing (the forever war on greenhouse gases?) and it needs to be global in scope - I don't dispute any of these. Unless, and until, an irrefutable global cooling trend eventually manifests, once the world firmly embarks down this path we will always "need to do more".

Society's resources are not unlimited. It is equally irresponsible to assume that we are "merely being wasteful" given the apparent scale, in this instance, of the needed intervention, diversion of resources, and behaviour change. What are the likely unintended consequences and which parts of our society bear the opportunity costs, are fairly important questions I would think. There is no free lunch.

as for your banker's visit to your company, i would say it performed a useful function. we will never know how y2k might have played out had the possibility of disaster been ignored. we do know that the warnings served to crank up a lot of effort, and that disaster was averted. we can draw no conclusions, and can merely be happy that there was in fact no problem..

At this point all we can do is agree to disagree about the (useless) banker's lawyer.

warnings serve a function in helping avoid danger. their success lies in the ABSENCE of certain events that might never have happened anyway

Only if the potential danger is real, and only if action can be defined and taken to materially reduce the probability of the danger occurring, or action can be taken to materially reduce the consequences when the dangerous event occurs - otherwise it's just chicken little. Mankind seems to spend a lot of time listening to, and worrying about, warnings that don't fit this criteria - the frequent "carcinogens in food" scares come to mind - its a wonder we eat anything but organic brocolli.

unfortunately, this is also why the cautious avoidance of risk is rarely rewarded. stan o'neil made the abysmal decision to take merril deep into the subprime business late in the game. charles prince of citibank said that as long as the music played, he had to dance. shortly thereafter the music stopped and he discovered in no longer had the chairman's chair in which to sit. but had he sat out the dance, had he been the type of individual to sit out the dance, he would never have gotten to be chairman, i believe.

...and I believe that Citi and its shareholders may have been better off if he never had.

It is very easy for the O'Neil's and Prince's of this world to take excessive corporate financial risks, when what is at risk is other people's money and they will be rewarded equally handsomely in the event of failure. In fact it is the Boards that are responsible for the strategy of the corporation. The CEO and management team are responsible for the successful implementation of that strategy. In these instances I believe the Board's awarded the generous severance because they KNOW they are the ones at fault, and this is a convenient way to deal with the guilt of being the hangman.

[jk]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

I don't agree.

The conventional energy industry is a huge "old economy" sector within what is referred to here as the production economy. But even it is miniscule in comparison with the FIRE economy, and its interests. I think that the fact that we are not hearing about energy companies suffering financial setbacks from credit instruments gone bad demonstrates just how separate it has been from what's been going on in the global economy.

We can be quite certain that carbon trading and many other outcomes of the global warming responses, many legislatively supported, will be concentrated to the highest degree possible within a resurrected FIRE economy, and the FIRE economy elite will benefit the most. I think the ranks of "the elite interests served by global warming" are multiplying rapidly in recognition of this. They will have far more influence over policy, subsidies, handouts, tariff protections, tax advantages, and so forth than anything going in the production economy, including energy interests.

and this is why we the u.s. congress and administration are working so diligently on carbon trading and similar issues - because the big money is pushing in that direction.:rolleyes:

ultimately, if the global warmists [?] are listened to, i would expect carbon trading and so on to be co-opted by the fire institutions, but for now, look at what is actually happening politically. where is the evidence of anyone with any real power pushing for anti-warming policies? money talks.

Unfortunately this is not like Y2K with a defined time frame and a clear, measurable outcome of success or failure (and, thankfully, a term-limit to the insanity and waste of resources).

In this instance we do not know what level of intervention is sufficient to solve the problem, or adequately mitigate its effects (itself implying two differing solution sets). We seem to know more about the size of the problem than we do about the size of the solution; even the most passionate and seeminlgy informed advocates diverge greatly on the latter. All we seem to be able to agree on is that the solution will be a massive effort, it will be ongoing (the forever war on greenhouse gases?) and it needs to be global in scope - I don't dispute any of these. Unless, and until, an irrefutable global cooling trend eventually manifests, once the world firmly embarks down this path we will always "need to do more".

Society's resources are not unlimited. It is equally irresponsible to assume that we are "merely being wasteful" given the apparent scale, in this instance, of the needed intervention, diversion of resources, and behaviour change. What are the likely unintended consequences and which parts of our society bear the opportunity costs, are fairly important questions I would think. There is no free lunch.

at the moment we do not appear threatened by society's overly large allocation to fight putative warming. the theory that at some time in the future such expenses might be too large relative to their benefit is not an argument to ignore the issue in the present.

At this point all we can do is agree to disagree about the (useless) banker's lawyer.

i am saying that we have insufficient information to judge. in the absence of information about what actions the board took as a result of the lawyer's threats, and an understanding of the consequences had the board not taken such actions, how do we know? assuming the board took some action, and assuming nothing bad happened on 1/1/00, we don't have enough information. if, in fact, the board ignored the threats, and nothing bad resulted, then all we know is that the lawyer's threats were unnecessary. under no other circumstances can we draw any conclusions whatsoever without further information.

Only if the potential danger is real, and only if action can be defined and taken to materially reduce the probability of the danger occurring, or action can be taken to materially reduce the consequences when the dangerous event occurs - otherwise it's just chicken little. Mankind seems to spend a lot of time listening to, and worrying about, warnings that don't fit this criteria - the frequent "carcinogens in food" scares come to mind - its a wonder we eat anything but organic brocolli.

"nutrition science" is indeed a good example of the difficulties of this process of evaluating information and warnings. i remember when butter was bad and margarine was therefore said to be good. then trans fats were discovered and margarine was the villain. our knowledge of what is best is very limited, but we can't postpone dinner while we await perfect information.

by the same token, however, it would be foolish to ignore what information we have. for example, there are lists available of fruits and vegetables and their average pesticide load [for non-organically grown]. brocolli apparently doesn't carry too much pesticide, so you needn't go to the extra expense of getting the organic. with lettuce, on the other hand, you'd likely be better off spending a bit more. whether the pesticide amounts are truly significant, i don't know. but as i said, i can't wait for dinner.

...and I believe that Citi and its shareholders may have been better off if he never had.

It is very easy for the O'Neil's and Prince's of this world to take excessive corporate financial risks, when what is at risk is other people's money and they will be rewarded equally handsomely in the event of failure. In fact it is the Boards that are responsible for the strategy of the corporation. The CEO and management team are responsible for the successful implementation of that strategy. In these instances I believe the Board's awarded the generous severance because they KNOW they are the ones at fault, and this is a convenient way to deal with the guilt of being the hangman.

i certainly agree that in theory citi and its shareholders would have been better off had prince decided to sit out the dance. but the nature of the institution, and the process by which its leadership is chosen and rewarded, makes such an occurrence very unlikely.

[Guest]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

JK wrote -

1. the "skepticism" about global warming serves certain political and economic interests, and those interests - including those of the international energy industries - are in fact much more powerful than the elite interests served by global warming theorists. further, i am bothered by the "skepticism"s resemblance to the tobacco industry's long-held [and self-interested] "skepticism" about the health effects of cigarettes. again, however, i state that these interests have no ultimate bearing on the science.

GRG55 replied -

I don't agree.

The conventional energy industry is a huge "old economy" sector within what is referred to here as the production economy. But even it is miniscule in comparison with the FIRE economy, and its interests. I think that the fact that we are not hearing about energy companies suffering financial setbacks from credit instruments gone bad demonstrates just how separate it has been from what's been going on in the global economy.

We can be quite certain that carbon trading and many other outcomes of the global warming responses, many legislatively supported, will be concentrated to the highest degree possible within a resurrected FIRE economy, and the FIRE economy elite will benefit the most. I think the ranks of "the elite interests served by global warming" are multiplying rapidly in recognition of this. They will have far more influence over policy, subsidies, handouts, tariff protections, tax advantages, and so forth than anything going in the production economy.


My observation -

GRG55 correctly notes the old economy sector based within and around hydrocarbons energy production is huge, acknowledging implicitly it's a very powerful lobby in the present. But he goes on to observe that the FIRE economy is many factors larger, implying that FIRE economy scale could represent a much larger influence or presumed opotunistic bias in favor of the global warming debate.

This omits noting that the very large FIRE economy and the pro-global warming elite lobby are quite evidently NOT one and the same. Not only are they entirely separate, but the pro-global-warming elite lobby are a tiny subsection of the FIRE economy, and I don't even see how they are inevitably a subset of the FIRE economy to begin with frankly. What does a University's research findings. or the Sierra Club, have to do with any FIRE economy?

The FIRE economy is indeed huge, but GRG55 only hitches the "pro-global-warming" lobby to it by inference. In fact, a very good case can be made that the "pro-global-warming" lobby has no immediately congruent interests with the FIRE economy, as by definition it implies massive initial COSTS to the FIRE economy as well as the old economy.

Think about it. Every action proposed by greenhouse gas abaters represents, certainly at least initially, a massive set of costs chopping out big chunks of the economic profits not only to P/C economy, but right across the entire global economy as well.

Anyone claiming the FIRE economy will derive significant net profits, (and avoid any loss!) from a 1% or 2% global reduction of GDP to accomodate the initial very large investments for global warming prevention, is plucking an assumption out of the air. Common sense would suggest that whatever places such a huge damper on global GDP aggregates sufficient to reduce the entire global GDP by 1% or 2%, also places a huge damper on FIRE economy profits right alongside the profits of the old producer / consumer economies.

Conversely, skeptics ascribe a huge political lobby of "entrenched establishment interests", to a small albeit rapidly growing array of microcap companies, scientists, outsider ecological movements like Greenpeace and assorted groups like the Sierra Club. Even the scientists on the UN panel, all presumed to be avidly in pursuit of a Nobel Prize at the expense of their previously sound scientific methodology, have little direct FIRE economy connection beyond the immediate scope of that one project. What do research groups of any stripe have to do with the FIRE economy?

Are these myriad small but vocal, until now largely outsider groups supposed to have a larger clout in world governments than the aggregate of global heavy industry, global manufacturing, global agriculture, global mining, etc?? The global warming groups, from science foundations, to universities, to Greenpeace, to the Sierra Club and every last Tom, Dick and Harry in this area all still niche players and do not remotely represent the financial heft and entrenched vested financial and economic interests of global heavy industry, global manufacturing, global agriculture and global mining.

My point is, you only need to look at who arrived at the global business profits dinner table first, the entire world's conventional energy-reliant industries (easily 75%+ of the pie on a global level) or all the new alt-energy and global warming upstarts? Then look at which of these two groups wants to take a drastic surgeon's knife to the world's profitable global industries to reduce carbon?

And finally with respect to applying the FIRE economy theorem to all countries in the world, this is to my view questionable. It is the same America-centric thinking which provides the world with such coined phrases as "decoupling" which was a term born entirely to accomodate the notion that the US is the lynchpin of how the world keeps running. The world contains infinitely more complex mechanisms beyond the FIRE economy, outside and far away from the US.

Remember, it's not all just about the US and it's FIRE economy. The entire industrialising world is following a traditional industrial trajectory that leaves the FIRE economy thesis looking like a singularly American construct.

CONCLUSION - JK put forward a valid (and politically agnostic) point. Vested interests who arrived at the "global industrial profits dinnertable" first, 50 and even 100 years ago, appear to be the same groups who are in fact outside the lobby that is promoting global warming. On closer scrutiny, it would appear there are some quite large interests out there who logically have every reason to avoid any global warming abatement initiative like the plague, because global warming abatement is expensive as all get-out, and it's by no means all going to be coming from public money. It appears a stretch to suggest that the much smaller global warming apologist groups (many of which are universities, fringe groups and science foundations who exist at the grants end of traditional industry, rather than at it's earnings end) have a larger lobby than do the captains of the many faceted, global hydrocarbons driven industry.

Main conclusion: Global warming abatement (if it's ever implemented seriously) will cost in aggregate far more than any profits accruing to a few vested interest niche groups.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

[quote=RickBishop;20760]

GLOBAL WARMING - FACT OR FICTION - A FOLLOW UP TO AN ITULIP DISCUSSION FROM JULY / AUGUST



I << Frequency of weather-related disasters

---

Hey what got my attention was the "insect infestation" I moved to Florida a few years ago from California and man do we have some insect infestation. My God U people have not seen bugs like this!!

Whatever the science is I don't care. The amount of oil being used can only lead to a bad ending. Just the way I see it.

Starving Steve here, once again:

The graph above is a distortion, as usual, so I suspect that it comes from the granola-munchers in Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or some similar group.

We have more firestorms now because the eco-frauds have not permited proper forest and range management. Fire-breaks have not been cut. Forests have not been thinned. Slow-burns in winter have not been conducted, all these sins because the eco-frauds have obstructed proper land management.

Opposite to what the graph shows, we have fewer droughts to-day than in prior years, at least in California. Average annual prepcipitation has gone up about 20% from what it was in the early 20th C. For example, annual rainfall at L.A. used to average 12 or 13 inches early in the 20th C, and now it about 14.5 or 15.5 inches per year.

There appear to be fewer deadly heat-waves than in prior years. High temperature records set in the Midwest U.S. in the 1930s still stand unbroken to-day. Not only that, the North American record high of 134F set at Death Valley in 1913 still is unbroken. The world's high temp record of 137F set in Algeria dating back to the 1930s has yet to be broken.

But one can not present the facts to the eco-frauds. The distortions and junk science about climate change and the environment continue--- probably because grant money can be more easily secured by scaring the public than by doing pains-taking observation, critical thinking, and honest science.

[rabot10]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

[quote=Starving Steve;20788]

Starving Steve here, once again:

The graph above is a distortion, as usual, so I suspect that it comes from the granola-munchers in Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or some similar group.

We have more firestorms now because the eco-frauds have not permited proper forest and range management. Fire-breaks have not been cut. Forests have not been thinned. Slow-burns in winter have not been conducted, all these sins because the eco-frauds have obstructed proper land management.

Opposite to what the graph shows, we have fewer droughts to-day than in prior years, at least in California. Average annual prepcipitation has gone up about 20% from what it was in the early 20th C. For example, annual rainfall at L.A. used to average 12 or 13 inches early in the 20th C, and now it about 14.5 or 15.5 inches per year.

There appear to be fewer deadly heat-waves than in prior years. High temperature records set in the Midwest U.S. in the 1930s still stand unbroken to-day. Not only that, the North American record high of 134F set at Death Valley in 1913 still is unbroken. The world's high temp record of 137F set in Algeria dating back to the 1930s has yet to be broken.

But one can not present the facts to the eco-frauds. The distortions and junk science about climate change and the environment continue--- probably because grant money can be more easily secured by scaring the public than by doing pains-taking observation, critical thinking, and honest science.

Hey the bugs are for real!!!!!

[Guest]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

RickBishop -

Starving Steve is not talking about the bugs out in Florida! He's talking about the Granola Munchers out here in California! It's a whole different kind of pest, see?

Of course some ignorant people, who slipped out from under the watchful eye of our ASPCA would take the fly-swatter to the California Granola Munchers instead, not realising they aren't those critter sized blood-sucking swamp-bugs you got out there in the Everglades where you decided to go improve your life (and that of your long suffering family, who followed you out there).

SWAT!! (splat) ...

HAH!! There go a half a dozen granola-munchers ... reduced to fly-mulch, so you can't even tell 'em apart from the real flies!

Hey, that was easy.

[quigleydoor]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

The graph above is a distortion, as usual, so I suspect that it comes from the granola-munchers in Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or some similar group.

The source is credited at the bottom of the graph. Swiss Re. Insurer to insurance companies. A lot of money is at stake in selling insurance to people for various "acts of God" type disasters, which are growing more frequent.

But one can not present the facts to the eco-frauds. The distortions and junk science about climate change and the environment continue--- probably because grant money can be more easily secured by scaring the public than by doing pains-taking observation, critical thinking, and honest science.

Go git those straw men! Sick 'em!

[Guest]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

Starving Steve -

I didn't have a chance to warn you, but it's probably a good idea to be careful about questioning Quigleydoor's data. He's a wonk, just like that guy Rajiv? Their data is probably not posted unless it's solid.

If Quigleydoor provides you with a chart showing a very high incidence of insurance claims and demonstrating a clear statistical trend, your dismissing it as rubbish before you bother to check it may represent a hazard for you.

It's real easy to "stub one's toe" around here on stuff like that. Beware! Lots of Wonks around! :rolleyes:

Starving Steve here, once again: The graph above is a distortion, as usual, so I suspect that it comes from the granola-munchers in Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or some similar group.

The source is credited at the bottom of the graph. Swiss Re. Insurer to insurance companies. A lot of money is at stake in selling insurance to people for various "acts of God" type disasters, which are growing more frequent.

[quigleydoor]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

- Modeling science vs. empirical science: I am very skeptical of complex computer models. All inputs and parameters are many sources of bias, beyond the scientists' own creative minds. Sorry I don't have time to be specific about this right now, but it's a fascinating area. The Economist had a piece about this issue a couple of months ago.

Here is the article I mentioned:

Statistics and climatology: Gambling on tomorrow, Aug 16th 2007, The Economist

The article nicely summarizes an academic paper about the importance of quantifying the uncertainty associated with results of climate models. I'll quote about half of the Economist article right here, for a basic but profound example:

Climate models have lots of parameters that are represented by numbers—for example, how quickly snow crystals fall from clouds, or for how long they reside within those clouds. Actually, these are two different ways of measuring the same thing, so whether a model uses one or the other should make no difference to its predictions. And, on a single run, it does not. But models are not given single runs. Since the future is uncertain, they are run thousands of times, with different values for the parameters, to produce a range of possible outcomes. The outcomes are assumed to cluster around the most probable version of the future.

The particular range of values chosen for a parameter is an example of a Bayesian prior assumption, since it is derived from actual experience of how the climate behaves—and may thus be modified in the light of experience. But the way you pick the individual values to plug into the model can cause trouble.

They might, for example, be assumed to be evenly spaced, say 1,2,3,4. But in the example of snow retention, evenly spacing both rate-of-fall and rate-of-residence-in-the-clouds values will give different distributions of result. That is because the second parameter is actually the reciprocal of the first. To make the two match, value for value, you would need, in the second case, to count 1, ½, ⅓, ¼—which is not evenly spaced. If you use evenly spaced values instead, the two models' outcomes will cluster differently.

Climate models have hundreds of parameters that might somehow be related in this sort of way. To be sure you are seeing valid results rather than artefacts of the models, you need to take account of all the ways that can happen.

That logistical nightmare is only now being addressed, and its practical consequences have yet to be worked out. . . . As the old saw has it, garbage in, garbage out. The difficulty comes when you do not know what garbage looks like.

[GRG55]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

...The FIRE economy is indeed huge, but GRG55 only hitches the "pro-global-warming" lobby to it by inference. In fact, a very good case can be made that the "pro-global-warming" lobby has no immediately congruent interests with the FIRE economy, as by definition it implies massive initial COSTS to the FIRE economy as well as the old economy...

Really? I'm going to call BS on that one. Have a look at the attendance rosters at the various international conferences on this topic. Notice who gets selected for Bartoromo's CNBC interviews on the topic. The private jets are overwhelmingly owned by do-good financiers like Soros.

Yes, Jeff Immelt (GE) likes to hang around to sell more wind turbines, and BP Solar will again promote their "beyond petroleum" organic sunflower logo schtick, but the costs will/are accruing overwhelmingly to the production economy. And you're going to see it in a reduced standard of living - unless you're Vinod Khosla or a VC at Kleiner.

The FIRE economy is already benefiting. Just one example: the "I" part of FIRE has managed to dramatically raise insurance rates, and their proftiablitily, on the self-serving premise that future losses due to natural disasters induced by climate change will rise. I don't begrudge profit, but this is an interesting development that is raising little argument except in places like Florida where they threaten to withdraw coverage.

ultimately, if the global warmists [?] are listened to, i would expect carbon trading and so on to be co-opted by the fire institutions, but for now, look at what is actually happening politically. where is the evidence of anyone with any real power pushing for anti-warming policies? money talks...

Just this week a government changed in Australia, in part on a platform to "sign Kyoto". As Americans should know better than anyone, politicians don't get elected without money.

Australia's new PM Rudd acts swiftly on climate
By Rob Taylor Sun Nov 25, 12:48 AM ET

BRISBANE (Reuters) - Australia's new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, made climate change his top priority on Sunday, seeking advice on ratifying the Kyoto pact and telling Indonesia he will go to December's UN climate summit in Bali.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071125/...bjevu0zbJrAlMA

[Guest]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

GRG55 -

Really? I'm going to call BS on that one.

I submit the fat commissions you think the GE's and Soros's of this world are eyeing will eventually be shown to small change compared to the truly colossal cost that eventual action (or inaction) will cost to all industrialised countries worldwide should they undertake global warming abatement.

At the end of the day, if the total expense of all these nations really committing to a Kyoto type protocol really promises to dwarf the windfall profits accruing to a smaller segment of FIRE economy speculative interests, no amount of posturing about a nonexistent global warming issue will accomplish that scam, and result in those massive expenses actually being disbursed by the world - unless and until the "global warming scam" turns out instead to be true, and substantiated by hard science.

It would be ingenuous of us to believe that global governments can or will ever be duped into actually disbursing these trillions, if the entire global warming thingy progresses into global legislation without any real basis. So what I'm saying is, if you see governments actually begin to shell out massive sums of real money to comply, you can assume the probability that warming is real just rose by a very large factor, because historically it's extremely rare to see a majority of nations in the world all simultaneously duped into committing vast portions of their future wealth to a myth.

In other words, suppose as you suggest we've got a group of wily businesses and FIRE economy sectors angling to make a killing from global warming mythology. Your thesis has to include the possibility this handful of wily businesses could succeed in the most gargantuan global fraud in history, and the collective number of sophisticated money pinching governments in the world will be "taken in" by it and actually begin the largest disbursement of expenses to underwrite a simple fraud in modern history. All of them would go along in this scenario, and the scamming FIRE sectors will make out like bandits.

Conversely, if we see the global warming debate proceed and coalesce into concerted global legislation and then actual disbursements, we can assume that the science is holding up to ever sharper global scrutiny, as the Finance ministries of the world go over the rationales with a gimlet eye cast upon the validity of these very large expenses.

Certainly there are some big companies in the private sector in line to benefit hugely from a trend shift to wean the world from fossil fuels, and quite rightly, GE is right up at the top of that list. But to turn that into an inference that "big vested interest money is the primary creator of this issue" where if they merely desisted, the issue would go away - well that seems a tough position for you to choose to defend GRG55.

Also, how does microanalysing whether big money vested interests are what's behind it all, ever outweigh a serious preliminary discussion of the above observations on CO2 levels breaking steeply out of half million year channels?

Surely even as laymen in general discussion, we should analyse such a topic not from the political top down, but from the scientific data bottom up? The "from the bottom up" in this case, means to valuate the potential significance of very large CO2 anomalies, as their correlation to temperature is quite clear. We never did discuss that.

Lastly I reiterate, what does the FIRE economy which you say is "driving" the entire global warming issue have to do with the entire industrialising world?

FIRE economy is a construct pertinent to the US, and possibly a few other of the most industrialised countries, although I've not seen any discussion anywhere on this website as to precisely how the FIRE economy pertains to any other nation.

What does the US FIRE economy of vested interests have to do with China, or India, or Russia, or Brazil, or Venezuela? How are the vested interests in the FIRE economy going to put one over on those countries. And conversely, if you see those countries, typically not abject followers of the US, going along with a new global warming agreement, why are they going along with it?

Why are scientists from these countries, under the auspices of their own governments, making a concerted call on global warming that along with winning them a Nobel, also risks committing their respective governments to massive financial outlays?

Do you think the lure of an individual Nobel prize blinds each and every one of these scientists to the massive financial liabilities each of their governments faces depending upon the outcome of the global warming verdict which they deliver?

It would seem to me, that state scientists from a country like China, who have a quite healthy fear of displeasing their government on any specious scientific verdict, would care about whether their government liked what they were reporting a lot more than they would ever care about getting that Nobel prize.

Despite massive financial risks inherent in what all these scientists are stating, they are indeed saying this thing in unison. Therefore to pin one's argument upon these individual scientist all being primarily motivated by the lure of a Nobel risks overlooking a much larger potential issue.

I find the UN's posturing on issues like naming Syria or Libya to any UN chair commission every bit as wretched as you do. They use craven sops to the regional lobbies to abjectly attempt to smooth everyone's feathers, and in the process totally disqualify themselves as a serious accountable body.

But this has only a very tenuous link to the sum of the work of scientists who's primary allegiance is to their respective governments, and those governments stand to foot some truly gargantuan, massive bills, precisely from the verdict these scientists have just turned in.

I think instead, what lends coherence to the unanimity with which these scientists speak from all corners of the world and many different political systems, (and increasingly also agreement from their own governments!), is the spreading realisation that global warming is shaping up to have a very large potential to devastate their own economies in the long run due to inaction also!

Hence what you interpret as tame scientists doing the bidding of a few vested interests, I see as scientists from vastly different countries all over the world who are in active and duly intelligent dialogue with their own nation's senior planners (think China, who are obsessed with long range planning), all of whom are in fact well out ahead of us already on these issues, understanding that global warming is not only real, but will comport massive costs for all nations, either way.

They - their governments, as well as their individual scientists who work under those governments, are realising they risk paying massively for doing nothing, just as they risk paying massively for doing something about it.

_____________


And with regard to the "profiteering" of the insurance companies who are in the advance guard of the FIRE economy on this global warming scam, please re-check the Swiss-Re chart of insurance claims which Quigleydoor filed - there again, a scrupulously compiled chart of hard data (the industry's actual insurance payouts) evidences a soaring uptrend - and very many of those components are climate related. Where are you in response to the data, GRG55?

Is it possible the rising insurance premiums you note bear a rational correlation to the rising disaster claims reflected in that chart? Also, are you factoring inflation into those rising premiums as well?

[jk]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

The FIRE economy is already benefiting. Just one example: the "I" part of FIRE has managed to dramatically raise insurance rates, and their proftiablitily, on the self-serving premise that future losses due to natural disasters induced by climate change will rise. I don't begrudge profit, but this is an interesting development that is raising little argument except in places like Florida where they threaten to withdraw coverage.

the last big bump in insurance rates was post hurricane andrew, in 1992. andrew cost over $26billion [in contemporaneous dollars]. hurricane katrina cost over $81billion in 2005 dollars. the insurance industry goes through a cycle: costly disaster payments are followed by big price hikes. if there is then a lull in disasters, competition tends to limit price hikes for a while, until the next disaster strikes. i see nothing in this last cycle of price hikes and coverage limitation that is any different than that expected on the basis of similar cycles in the past. where is the evidence that there is an overblown, fanciful prospective premium built-in? [this is not to say that insurance companies won't say anything whatsoever to bolster their claim on increased premiums.]

Just this week a government changed in Australia, in part on a platform to "sign Kyoto". As Americans should know better than anyone, politicians don't get elected without money.

Australia's new PM Rudd acts swiftly on climate
By Rob Taylor Sun Nov 25, 12:48 AM ET

BRISBANE (Reuters) - Australia's new prime minister, Kevin Rudd, made climate change his top priority on Sunday, seeking advice on ratifying the Kyoto pact and telling Indonesia he will go to December's UN climate summit in Bali.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071125/...bjevu0zbJrAlMA

grg, you live closer to australia than i do, and perhaps you follow their politics. i don't. i am skeptical, however, that carbon policy was a big issue in the election, or drove either support or money in a significant way. do you have reason to believe otherwise? i know that here, in the u.s., there is an endless political campaign in the run-up to 2008. i suppose the candidates have global warming/carbon policies, but i have to say that i am totally unaware of what they are. i could make guesses, but they would only be guesses. should one of the democrats be elected president, will you point to his or her putative carbon policy as evidence that political contributions are driven by individuals and institutions with an interest in exploiting that policy?

[bill]

Re: Follow up (and reality check) on iTulip Global Warming Thread from July

grg, you live closer to australia than i do, and perhaps you follow their politics. i don't. i am skeptical, however, that carbon policy was a big issue in the election, or drove either support or money in a significant way.

http://greens.org.au/QldSenate#post_1195964611

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...efer=australia

Senate Politics
Labor will have to negotiate with other parties in the Senate, where the balance of power will be held by five Greens senators, the sole Family First representative and anti-gambling independent Nick Xenophon, according to Australian Broadcasting Corp. projections.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=328489