5 ms·

There's a pretty strong impulse to call somebody a "denier" in order to categorically denounce what he's saying, as well as everybody similarly skeptical. It's

There's a pretty strong impulse to call somebody a "denier" in order to categorically denounce what he's saying, as well as everybody similarly skeptical. It's important, when doing this, to paint the person in the simplest "nutshell" terms. Those awful climate "denialists" for instance: In a nutshell: Global warming either (1) isn't real (2) isn't caused by humans or (3) doesn't matter Well, #2 is certainly within the bounds of possibility. Evidence: The entire history of the earth. And, as for #3, you could actually make the argument that global warming would be a net positive. (Contrast warming with a new ice age.) Not say that it's true, but it's a possibility, and shouldn't result in intellectual exile. He, of course, misses #4: (4) Global warming is real; but it is #1 mainly intended to achieve a long-standing but tactically-shifting goal of governments to control capital, and otherwise generate billions/trillions for the well-connected and #2 is hopeless because China and India aren't getting suckered into it, ever. That is something they don't want to address, because, as far as I've seen, it is the correct assessment. "Follow the money" almost always is. And if you keep following the money, you will likely find that even the most committed climate changists are not expending their own resources to short Florida coastal real estate on the weight of their beliefs.

Agent101 16y ago
Is there a market for long time scale shorts on EFTs? I know long term oil futures go for 7-8 years generally. I wouldn't place bets except on the time scale of 20-40 years and even then I'm not sure it is worth it in terms of likely pay off and time taken to research.
weego 16y ago
There's also the possibility that it is a social engineering effort to get people to switch away from fossil fuels in a positive way ("I've switched to hydrogen cells to save the planet!" rather than "Goddamn fuel prices are so high I can't even drive to work anymore! And what the hell are the politicians doing about it?") in a timescale that allows a transition without impending widescale economic meltdown. "Things have to change within 100 years" is not something that will get shareholders signing checks for R&D and wholesale changes to business practices unless there is considerable pressure from the overall consumer population. That does assume that benevolence has a higher priority in the world than profit of course. I'm not sure.
rortian 16y ago
It's sad that this is being up-voted as it is incredibly misleading and a conspiracy theory to boot: >#1 mainly intended to achieve a long-standing but tactically-shifting goal of governments to control capital No, global warming is not a government plan. It is an area of scientific consensus that has emerged from the work of thousands of individuals in many countries. Most mainstream solutions to dealing with global warming have absolutely nothing to do with controlling capital. In the US, we constantly bend over backwards to makes sure private enterprise controls lots of stuff (even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized in R&D and production). >you will likely find that even the most committed climate changists are not expending their own resources to short Florida coastal real estate on the weight of their beliefs. This statement is at best tremendously disingenuous and at worst an amazing attempt at self-delusion. There is no good way to short houses. (Getting CDSs on mortgage backed securities is possible but there are no houses on the coast securities. Shorting those wouldn't even help, as mortgages will be paid off before the sea rises enough). Also, all the global warming sea rise predictions are on the order of decades and centuries. What highly knowledgeable scientist in there late 30s or 40s will make at bet that will be resolved when they are dead? I'll bet you any amount of money that we will have a Korean president by 2150. Don't believe me? Unless you do, you'd better make a bet with me.
- mseebach 16y ago
  > No, global warming is not a government plan. The proposed solutions to GW are. Politicians will play a significant part in distributing carbon credits. And you said it yourself: > (even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized in R&D and production). Subsidized by whom? Private companies that only exist because of government money really aren't private. I disagree with the OP that it's a scheme to control capital, I don't think it's a scheme of any kind. I just think politicians happen to absolutely love an issue with an absolute evil and a very difficult and expensive solution. No matter how much, the other guy will never be able to do enough. My main beef with GW isn't the science. I think it's highly entertaining to follow stuff like ClimateGate, but my beef is with the politics. "Solutions" to GW invariably includes hugely expensive government programs.
  - 16y ago
fnid2 16y ago
The main supporter of the global warming ... scam really, also charges thousands of dollars to crowds of people who want to give his talk to others. He is the manager of a hedge fund investing billions in "green" technology. He is one of the most powerful people in the world, even almost becoming president once. His talks are full of inaccuracies and in-congruent cause/effect relationships. If he was serious about his cause, he'd be encouraging people to move away from coasts. Instead, he encourages them to invest in the products and companies he's already holding.
FlorinAndrei 16y ago
"In a nutshell: Global warming either (1) isn't real (2) isn't caused by humans or (3) doesn't matter" I know people who might serve you either #1 or #2 or #3 depending on the situation, their momentary mood or the course of discussion. Sometimes they even provide you a potpourri of all of the above at the same time. It's like arguing with flat earthers.
jbooth 16y ago
Blech! Your #4 is basically saying "I concede that it's actually real but am going to deny it for unrelated economic ideological reasons." I mean you're pretty wholeheartedly embracing the term "denier" there.

Agent101 16y ago

Is there a market for long time scale shorts on EFTs? I know long term oil futures go for 7-8 years generally. I wouldn't place bets except on the time scale of 20-40 years and even then I'm not sure it is worth it in terms of likely pay off and time taken to research.

weego 16y ago

There's also the possibility that it is a social engineering effort to get people to switch away from fossil fuels in a positive way ("I've switched to hydrogen cells to save the planet!" rather than "Goddamn fuel prices are so high I can't even drive to work anymore! And what the hell are the politicians doing about it?") in a timescale that allows a transition without impending widescale economic meltdown. "Things have to change within 100 years" is not something that will get shareholders signing checks for R&D and wholesale changes to business practices unless there is considerable pressure from the overall consumer population. That does assume that benevolence has a higher priority in the world than profit of course. I'm not sure.

rortian 16y ago

It's sad that this is being up-voted as it is incredibly misleading and a conspiracy theory to boot: >#1 mainly intended to achieve a long-standing but tactically-shifting goal of governments to control capital No, global warming is not a government plan. It is an area of scientific consensus that has emerged from the work of thousands of individuals in many countries. Most mainstream solutions to dealing with global warming have absolutely nothing to do with controlling capital. In the US, we constantly bend over backwards to makes sure private enterprise controls lots of stuff (even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized in R&D and production). >you will likely find that even the most committed climate changists are not expending their own resources to short Florida coastal real estate on the weight of their beliefs. This statement is at best tremendously disingenuous and at worst an amazing attempt at self-delusion. There is no good way to short houses. (Getting CDSs on mortgage backed securities is possible but there are no houses on the coast securities. Shorting those wouldn't even help, as mortgages will be paid off before the sea rises enough). Also, all the global warming sea rise predictions are on the order of decades and centuries. What highly knowledgeable scientist in there late 30s or 40s will make at bet that will be resolved when they are dead? I'll bet you any amount of money that we will have a Korean president by 2150. Don't believe me? Unless you do, you'd better make a bet with me.

mseebach 16y ago
> No, global warming is not a government plan. The proposed solutions to GW are. Politicians will play a significant part in distributing carbon credits. And you said it yourself: > (even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized in R&D and production). Subsidized by whom? Private companies that only exist because of government money really aren't private. I disagree with the OP that it's a scheme to control capital, I don't think it's a scheme of any kind. I just think politicians happen to absolutely love an issue with an absolute evil and a very difficult and expensive solution. No matter how much, the other guy will never be able to do enough. My main beef with GW isn't the science. I think it's highly entertaining to follow stuff like ClimateGate, but my beef is with the politics. "Solutions" to GW invariably includes hugely expensive government programs.
- 16y ago

fnid2 16y ago

The main supporter of the global warming ... scam really, also charges thousands of dollars to crowds of people who want to give his talk to others. He is the manager of a hedge fund investing billions in "green" technology. He is one of the most powerful people in the world, even almost becoming president once. His talks are full of inaccuracies and in-congruent cause/effect relationships. If he was serious about his cause, he'd be encouraging people to move away from coasts. Instead, he encourages them to invest in the products and companies he's already holding.

FlorinAndrei 16y ago

"In a nutshell: Global warming either (1) isn't real (2) isn't caused by humans or (3) doesn't matter" I know people who might serve you either #1 or #2 or #3 depending on the situation, their momentary mood or the course of discussion. Sometimes they even provide you a potpourri of all of the above at the same time. It's like arguing with flat earthers.

jbooth 16y ago

Blech! Your #4 is basically saying "I concede that it's actually real but am going to deny it for unrelated economic ideological reasons." I mean you're pretty wholeheartedly embracing the term "denier" there.