5 ms·

Predictable, given the author and the venue. No information content. "... despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test." R

by lutorm 17y ago

Predictable, given the author and the venue. No information content. "... despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test." Really? Which evidence is that?

tjic 17y ago
> Predictable, given the author and the venue. No information content. The name of the rhetorical flaw you've engaged in is "ad hominem attack". That is to say, you didn't give a single disagreement with the facts presented, you just said "well, the person who said it is a pederast and a simpleton..."
- lutorm 17y ago
  I merely said that the content was predictable once you knew the author and venue and contained nothing new for me. Surely that is a valid sentiment? For sure, it can not constitute an "ad hominem attack" unless you consider saying that people are predictable an "attack". I didn't even say I disagree with the conclusion (though I do).
  - miked 17y ago
    >> I merely said that the content was predictable once you knew the author and venue and contained nothing new for me. "But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created." You could have predicted that by knowing the author and the venue? And if that disqualifies him/them, why is anything Al Gore says at a climate change conference valid?
anamax 17y ago
> Really? Which evidence is that? The UN's climate change committee's numbers. They found that action now was economically justified now only if they used a negative discount rate. Do you want to argue that they dramatically overstated the costs now? Or, do you want argue that they understated the costs later? If you like both of their numbers, then you get to argue, as they tried, that spending $1 now to eliminate a problem that will cost <$1 to fix later is a good idea. It's almost unheard of to use a negative discount rate because time is worth money.
- lutorm 17y ago
  Can you point me to where in the WG3 report it says that? I can't say I've read it carefully, but my impression from the Summary was that there are substantial mitigation measures that are both "market feasible" (comparable ROI of investing the money otherwise) and "society feasible" (meaning it will be a net profit, but if you wanted to maximize profit you'd invest it elsewhere).
  - anamax 17y ago
    My mistake, I was referring specifically to the Stern Report - there's a good discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review . The IPCC (ipcc.ch) also plays games with discount rates.

by lutorm 17y ago

Predictable, given the author and the venue. No information content. "... despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test." Really? Which evidence is that?

tjic 17y ago

> Predictable, given the author and the venue. No information content. The name of the rhetorical flaw you've engaged in is "ad hominem attack". That is to say, you didn't give a single disagreement with the facts presented, you just said "well, the person who said it is a pederast and a simpleton..."

lutorm 17y ago
I merely said that the content was predictable once you knew the author and venue and contained nothing new for me. Surely that is a valid sentiment? For sure, it can not constitute an "ad hominem attack" unless you consider saying that people are predictable an "attack". I didn't even say I disagree with the conclusion (though I do).
- miked 17y ago
  >> I merely said that the content was predictable once you knew the author and venue and contained nothing new for me. "But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created." You could have predicted that by knowing the author and the venue? And if that disqualifies him/them, why is anything Al Gore says at a climate change conference valid?

anamax 17y ago

> Really? Which evidence is that? The UN's climate change committee's numbers. They found that action now was economically justified now only if they used a negative discount rate. Do you want to argue that they dramatically overstated the costs now? Or, do you want argue that they understated the costs later? If you like both of their numbers, then you get to argue, as they tried, that spending $1 now to eliminate a problem that will cost <$1 to fix later is a good idea. It's almost unheard of to use a negative discount rate because time is worth money.

lutorm 17y ago
Can you point me to where in the WG3 report it says that? I can't say I've read it carefully, but my impression from the Summary was that there are substantial mitigation measures that are both "market feasible" (comparable ROI of investing the money otherwise) and "society feasible" (meaning it will be a net profit, but if you wanted to maximize profit you'd invest it elsewhere).
- anamax 17y ago
  My mistake, I was referring specifically to the Stern Report - there's a good discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review . The IPCC (ipcc.ch) also plays games with discount rates.