The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents I (1 Viewer)

[vnel8tn]

At the risk of ridicule for starting a new thread on this topic (I searched through today's threads and saw no mention of this article), I thought I would share:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/03/31/the-ipccs-latest-report-deliberately-excludes-and-misrepresents-important-climate-science/

Fire away...

 

[StrikeS2k]

NIPCC? Reminds me of "No Ma'am".

https://www.google.com/search?q=no+ma%27am&client=firefox-a&hs=dx7&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=O-Pm-KskNUxCcM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcQt_LoFSvbfU2Arnd6JZjgAiRVBDMyblxvai8T2Pz2--TtAljHo%253B512%253B384%253B2uo7wrgUFWVNWM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.bundyology.com%25252Fnomaam.html&source=iu&usg=__lu22lcFKTv-L5TCrccddmy98xWM%3D&sa=X&ei=xPk5U5XNIMOkyQH-loCYCA&ved=0CE0Q9QEwAA#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=O-Pm-KskNUxCcM%253A%3B2uo7wrgUFWVNWM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bundyology.com%252Fnomaam2.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.bundyology.com%252Fnomaam.html%3B512%3B384

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Virtually no one (including me) understands the science well enough to truly defend their position. So it's an easy subject to demagogue. Fred Singer has banked on that fact for many years now.

He is known for

questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss,[2] his public denial of the health risks of passive smoking, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

 

[vnel8tn]

Surprised Tim hasn't chimed in...I wonder if I picked a poor title?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can we stop labeling "opinion pieces" articles?

 

[jon_mx]

Can we stop labeling "opinion pieces" articles?

Can we stop labeling them science?

 

[vnel8tn]

Can we stop labeling "opinion pieces" articles?

Where did you see this label?

 

[vnel8tn]

Can we stop labeling "opinion pieces" articles?

Can we stop labeling them science?

I didn't see this label either...?

 

[Koya]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Can we stop labeling "opinion pieces" articles?

Where did you see this label?

...I searched through today's threads and saw no mention of this article

ETA: And if you might mean why I think this is an opinion piece and not an article then this gives it away,

 

[DiStefano]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

Right. And no Democrat benefits from creating hysteria about it. The fact that Al Gore was worth $2 million in the year 2000, and is worth $200 million today is merely a happy coincidence.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

Right. And no Democrat benefits from creating hysteria about it. The fact that Al Gore was worth $2 million in the year 2000, and is worth $200 million today is merely a happy coincidence.

Fabulous non-sequiter!

 

[Koya]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

Right. And no Democrat benefits from creating hysteria about it. The fact that Al Gore was worth $2 million in the year 2000, and is worth $200 million today is merely a happy coincidence.

So, you are not denying the fact that when you cut to the chase and follow the money, the smart money - and a lot of it - is on climate change as near certain reality.

 

[jon_mx]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

 

[shader]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

This is a silly argument. Virtually the entire economy is built around oil and gas. Since this is a huge problem and is assumed to be causing global warming...I'd say the entire economy is built on global warming NOT occurring.

 

[Koya]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

This is a silly argument. Virtually the entire economy is built around oil and gas. Since this is a huge problem and is assumed to be causing global warming...I'd say the entire economy is built on global warming NOT occurring.

If you look at an economy as a snapshot.

But, it's not. Things are always moving, trending, rising, falling.

I can say with surety that big money in Real Estate is expecting there to be some rise in sea levels as we look forward.

Folks can laugh at it, make statements that have nothing to do with what I posted or look at a snapshot and think they know the plot of a movie, but for me the money is pretty non-political and non-ideological. And when both of those slants make it near impossible to really know the "truth" (and that's because folks on both sides will gladly distort in their ideological favor), I find that following the money can be a pretty straight forward and accurate approach, if done within the right context.

 

[jon_mx]

Anybody hoping to make money off of sea levels rising are going to be in for a disappointment. Smart money does not go after high-risk investments which take a very long time to be realized. That is a crazy theory, and anyone money invested to do so certainly can't be classified as smart.

 

[shader]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

This is a silly argument. Virtually the entire economy is built around oil and gas. Since this is a huge problem and is assumed to be causing global warming...I'd say the entire economy is built on global warming NOT occurring.

If you look at an economy as a snapshot.

But, it's not. Things are always moving, trending, rising, falling.

I can say with surety that big money in Real Estate is expecting there to be some rise in sea levels as we look forward.

Folks can laugh at it, make statements that have nothing to do with what I posted or look at a snapshot and think they know the plot of a movie, but for me the money is pretty non-political and non-ideological. And when both of those slants make it near impossible to really know the "truth" (and that's because folks on both sides will gladly distort in their ideological favor), I find that following the money can be a pretty straight forward and accurate approach, if done within the right context.

Big money in real estate is looking for rising sea levels? That is a new one to me.

 

[Koya]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

This is a silly argument. Virtually the entire economy is built around oil and gas. Since this is a huge problem and is assumed to be causing global warming...I'd say the entire economy is built on global warming NOT occurring.

If you look at an economy as a snapshot.

But, it's not. Things are always moving, trending, rising, falling.

I can say with surety that big money in Real Estate is expecting there to be some rise in sea levels as we look forward.

Folks can laugh at it, make statements that have nothing to do with what I posted or look at a snapshot and think they know the plot of a movie, but for me the money is pretty non-political and non-ideological. And when both of those slants make it near impossible to really know the "truth" (and that's because folks on both sides will gladly distort in their ideological favor), I find that following the money can be a pretty straight forward and accurate approach, if done within the right context.

Big money in real estate is looking for rising sea levels? That is a new one to me.

I'm in the industry. There's an expectation. I'm not talking about buying tracts of land inland, but certainly preparing, at significant engineering cost, for certain expectations and also general discussion re: sustainability, especially pertaining to large/dense urban areas and the need to protect the environment (and all those assets) from the expected future.

Now, I'm saying that this is just my personal final arbiter int he matter. I'm not coming to the table with studies or anything else, although an objective look at all of the info and mis-info (hard to know what's what at time) still tells me that we are at great risk of climate change. Even if I am not sure the cause, and less sure the specific results.

I "know" something is up, it will likely result in general warming and that it's PROBABLY exacerbated considerably by human guys. And when I doubt, I remember what folks who are far more right of center than I have said, and what / how they are investing.

 

[Koya]

Anybody hoping to make money off of sea levels rising are going to be in for a disappointment. Smart money does not go after high-risk investments which take a very long time to be realized. That is a crazy theory, and anyone money invested to do so certainly can't be classified as smart.

It's not theory. It's practice. In new engineering of buildings and calls for / investment in certain preventative measures (obviously defensive actions at a local level), in anticipation of something that could already be taking hold. Now, this is not to say that investors just expect that sea levels will be "x" inches higher in say, 30 years... but there is a general acknowledgement that at the least, we will have more severe weather events and greater swings, of wet and dry. Considering the percentage of real estate assets that are located near sea level, there's simply too much to risk to just wait around till we all need coolots. If you have a significantly higher chance of greater storms and storm surgest, you are going to take that into consideration.

And that's what I have, albeit it anecdotally, encountered over the past few years.

 

[jon_mx]

Anybody hoping to make money off of sea levels rising are going to be in for a disappointment. Smart money does not go after high-risk investments which take a very long time to be realized. That is a crazy theory, and anyone money invested to do so certainly can't be classified as smart.

It's not theory. It's practice. In new engineering of buildings and calls for / investment in certain preventative measures (obviously defensive actions at a local level), in anticipation of something that could already be taking hold. Now, this is not to say that investors just expect that sea levels will be "x" inches higher in say, 30 years... but there is a general acknowledgement that at the least, we will have more severe weather events and greater swings, of wet and dry. Considering the percentage of real estate assets that are located near sea level, there's simply too much to risk to just wait around till we all need coolots. If you have a significantly higher chance of greater storms and storm surgest, you are going to take that into consideration.

And that's what I have, albeit it anecdotally, encountered over the past few years.

Engineers are always looking to build things better, stronger, cheaper. I am not sure you can attribute these type of improvements to people investing or banking on global warming. They are just trying to prevent problems they have seen happen in the past from happen again.

 

[Koya]

Anybody hoping to make money off of sea levels rising are going to be in for a disappointment. Smart money does not go after high-risk investments which take a very long time to be realized. That is a crazy theory, and anyone money invested to do so certainly can't be classified as smart.

It's not theory. It's practice. In new engineering of buildings and calls for / investment in certain preventative measures (obviously defensive actions at a local level), in anticipation of something that could already be taking hold. Now, this is not to say that investors just expect that sea levels will be "x" inches higher in say, 30 years... but there is a general acknowledgement that at the least, we will have more severe weather events and greater swings, of wet and dry. Considering the percentage of real estate assets that are located near sea level, there's simply too much to risk to just wait around till we all need coolots. If you have a significantly higher chance of greater storms and storm surgest, you are going to take that into consideration.

And that's what I have, albeit it anecdotally, encountered over the past few years.

Engineers are always looking to build things better, stronger, cheaper. I am not sure you can attribute these type of improvements to people investing or banking on global warming. They are just trying to prevent problems they have seen happen in the past from happen again.

I've heard them talk about it - them being CEO's of major REITs and other institutional investors (not the engineers, though I've heard them as well, but that's not the point) and it being global warming / climate change. Their words were pretty clear, and the sentiment has been repeated and echoed quite a bit over the past few years.

Again, not expecting this to convince anyone else, it's just my personal experience. But it's fairly enlightening I have to admit. These are hardly Obama fanboys ya know.

 

[vnel8tn]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

Right. And no Democrat benefits from creating hysteria about it. The fact that Al Gore was worth $2 million in the year 2000, and is worth $200 million today is merely a happy coincidence.

So, you are not denying the fact that when you cut to the chase and follow the money, the smart money - and a lot of it - is on climate change as near certain reality.

I am not doubting that the climate may be (probably is) changing, I just don't believe that we can pin point the reason as to being man made. Other factors are in play, yes? What unilateral changes could possibly be made in our economy that would affect the cause that would not also cripple our economy? Do I doubt that there are people banking on making out like bandits by being alarmists? Hell no! Gore already has you all in the bank!

 

[Koya]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

Right. And no Democrat benefits from creating hysteria about it. The fact that Al Gore was worth $2 million in the year 2000, and is worth $200 million today is merely a happy coincidence.

So, you are not denying the fact that when you cut to the chase and follow the money, the smart money - and a lot of it - is on climate change as near certain reality.

I am not doubting that the climate may be (probably is) changing, I just don't believe that we can pin point the reason as to being man made. Other factors are in play, yes? What unilateral changes could possibly be made in our economy that would affect the cause that would not also cripple our economy? Do I doubt that there are people banking on making out like bandits by being alarmists? Hell no! Gore already has you all in the bank!

Well, I see that the strategy of deflecting and calling out Gore's greed/obsession/success is quite en vogue here.

That said, I agree with your general points made until then. It's changing, hardly deniable. Very likely getting warming, and significantly so with far more weather events and climate swings on a local / regional basis.

We don't know the cause, but again, there's overwhelming evidence to suggest (and yes, it's suggest, not proven by any stretch) that man made forces are a strong contributor and quite possibly / probably the driver.

With this much evidence but no sure answer, I'd rather remain on the side of caution, especially if by implementing a more green friendly approach, even if there is NO climate change you are going to do quite a bit of good for the environment. Economically we just need to be smart about how to strategize and implement.

 

[vnel8tn]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

Right. And no Democrat benefits from creating hysteria about it. The fact that Al Gore was worth $2 million in the year 2000, and is worth $200 million today is merely a happy coincidence.

So, you are not denying the fact that when you cut to the chase and follow the money, the smart money - and a lot of it - is on climate change as near certain reality.

I am not doubting that the climate may be (probably is) changing, I just don't believe that we can pin point the reason as to being man made. Other factors are in play, yes? What unilateral changes could possibly be made in our economy that would affect the cause that would not also cripple our economy? Do I doubt that there are people banking on making out like bandits by being alarmists? Hell no! Gore already has you all in the bank!

Well, I see that the strategy of deflecting and calling out Gore's greed/obsession/success is quite en vogue here.

That said, I agree with your general points made until then. It's changing, hardly deniable. Very likely getting warming, and significantly so with far more weather events and climate swings on a local / regional basis.

We don't know the cause, but again, there's overwhelming evidence to suggest (and yes, it's suggest, not proven by any stretch) that man made forces are a strong contributor and quite possibly / probably the driver.

With this much evidence but no sure answer, I'd rather remain on the side of caution, especially if by implementing a more green friendly approach, even if there is NO climate change you are going to do quite a bit of good for the environment. Economically we just need to be smart about how to strategize and implement.

Were you not the one that brought up the concept of 'follow the money'?

 

[Koya]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

Right. And no Democrat benefits from creating hysteria about it. The fact that Al Gore was worth $2 million in the year 2000, and is worth $200 million today is merely a happy coincidence.

So, you are not denying the fact that when you cut to the chase and follow the money, the smart money - and a lot of it - is on climate change as near certain reality.

I am not doubting that the climate may be (probably is) changing, I just don't believe that we can pin point the reason as to being man made. Other factors are in play, yes? What unilateral changes could possibly be made in our economy that would affect the cause that would not also cripple our economy? Do I doubt that there are people banking on making out like bandits by being alarmists? Hell no! Gore already has you all in the bank!

Well, I see that the strategy of deflecting and calling out Gore's greed/obsession/success is quite en vogue here.

That said, I agree with your general points made until then. It's changing, hardly deniable. Very likely getting warming, and significantly so with far more weather events and climate swings on a local / regional basis.

We don't know the cause, but again, there's overwhelming evidence to suggest (and yes, it's suggest, not proven by any stretch) that man made forces are a strong contributor and quite possibly / probably the driver.

With this much evidence but no sure answer, I'd rather remain on the side of caution, especially if by implementing a more green friendly approach, even if there is NO climate change you are going to do quite a bit of good for the environment. Economically we just need to be smart about how to strategize and implement.

Were you not the one that brought up the concept of 'follow the money'?

With all due respect (and honestly, I'm not sure how much is due, just being honest), I am trying to engage in a legit discussion with at least a somewhat open mind.

Unfortunately, it seems many prefer to just engage in non-sequitor (as noted above) diversionary "tactics" rather than engage in what is, for real, quite an important discussion.

Congrats on being part of that diversion.

PS - Can't stand Gore.

 

[DiStefano]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

Right. And no Democrat benefits from creating hysteria about it. The fact that Al Gore was worth $2 million in the year 2000, and is worth $200 million today is merely a happy coincidence.

So, you are not denying the fact that when you cut to the chase and follow the money, the smart money - and a lot of it - is on climate change as near certain reality.

I am not doubting that the climate may be (probably is) changing, I just don't believe that we can pin point the reason as to being man made. Other factors are in play, yes? What unilateral changes could possibly be made in our economy that would affect the cause that would not also cripple our economy? Do I doubt that there are people banking on making out like bandits by being alarmists? Hell no! Gore already has you all in the bank!

Well, I see that the strategy of deflecting and calling out Gore's greed/obsession/success is quite en vogue here.

That said, I agree with your general points made until then. It's changing, hardly deniable. Very likely getting warming, and significantly so with far more weather events and climate swings on a local / regional basis.

We don't know the cause, but again, there's overwhelming evidence to suggest (and yes, it's suggest, not proven by any stretch) that man made forces are a strong contributor and quite possibly / probably the driver.

With this much evidence but no sure answer, I'd rather remain on the side of caution, especially if by implementing a more green friendly approach, even if there is NO climate change you are going to do quite a bit of good for the environment. Economically we just need to be smart about how to strategize and implement.

Were you not the one that brought up the concept of 'follow the money'?

With all due respect (and honestly, I'm not sure how much is due, just being honest), I am trying to engage in a legit discussion with at least a somewhat open mind.

Unfortunately, it seems many prefer to just engage in non-sequitor (as noted above) diversionary "tactics" rather than engage in what is, for real, quite an important discussion.

Congrats on being part of that diversion.

PS - Can't stand Gore.

Please, if you're going to quote Latin to show how learned you are, spell it right. You and your fellow traveler above both misspelled it in different ways.

Non sequitur.

 

[jonessed]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

This is a silly argument. Virtually the entire economy is built around oil and gas. Since this is a huge problem and is assumed to be causing global warming...I'd say the entire economy is built on global warming NOT occurring.

If you look at an economy as a snapshot.

But, it's not. Things are always moving, trending, rising, falling.

I can say with surety that big money in Real Estate is expecting there to be some rise in sea levels as we look forward.

Folks can laugh at it, make statements that have nothing to do with what I posted or look at a snapshot and think they know the plot of a movie, but for me the money is pretty non-political and non-ideological. And when both of those slants make it near impossible to really know the "truth" (and that's because folks on both sides will gladly distort in their ideological favor), I find that following the money can be a pretty straight forward and accurate approach, if done within the right context.

Perhaps you could be less general. What big real estate moves are you referring to?

 

[TheAristocrat]

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

Link to relevance, please.

 

[Koya]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

Right. And no Democrat benefits from creating hysteria about it. The fact that Al Gore was worth $2 million in the year 2000, and is worth $200 million today is merely a happy coincidence.

So, you are not denying the fact that when you cut to the chase and follow the money, the smart money - and a lot of it - is on climate change as near certain reality.

I am not doubting that the climate may be (probably is) changing, I just don't believe that we can pin point the reason as to being man made. Other factors are in play, yes? What unilateral changes could possibly be made in our economy that would affect the cause that would not also cripple our economy? Do I doubt that there are people banking on making out like bandits by being alarmists? Hell no! Gore already has you all in the bank!

Well, I see that the strategy of deflecting and calling out Gore's greed/obsession/success is quite en vogue here.

That said, I agree with your general points made until then. It's changing, hardly deniable. Very likely getting warming, and significantly so with far more weather events and climate swings on a local / regional basis.

We don't know the cause, but again, there's overwhelming evidence to suggest (and yes, it's suggest, not proven by any stretch) that man made forces are a strong contributor and quite possibly / probably the driver.

With this much evidence but no sure answer, I'd rather remain on the side of caution, especially if by implementing a more green friendly approach, even if there is NO climate change you are going to do quite a bit of good for the environment. Economically we just need to be smart about how to strategize and implement.

Were you not the one that brought up the concept of 'follow the money'?

With all due respect (and honestly, I'm not sure how much is due, just being honest), I am trying to engage in a legit discussion with at least a somewhat open mind.

Unfortunately, it seems many prefer to just engage in non-sequitor (as noted above) diversionary "tactics" rather than engage in what is, for real, quite an important discussion.

Congrats on being part of that diversion.

PS - Can't stand Gore.

Please, if you're going to quote Latin to show how learned you are, spell it right. You and your fellow traveler above both misspelled it in different ways.

Non sequitur.

I've mispelled far easier, far worse.

I take it that response is another Non secator?

And it's not quoting Latin, it's a term of use. But whose counting (swidt?)

Back on subject, at a meeting headed by one of the leading republicans on Long Island who happens to run one of the largest regional engineering firms. While he acknowledges that we must continue to question findings and the science that the evidence is pretty overwhelming that climate change is indeed occuring and low lying areas are more and more vulnerable. This after he railed in the failures of French socialism and the bs numbers associated with Obama care.

Hopefully that's sequitur enough for you.

 

[Koya]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

This is a silly argument. Virtually the entire economy is built around oil and gas. Since this is a huge problem and is assumed to be causing global warming...I'd say the entire economy is built on global warming NOT occurring.

If you look at an economy as a snapshot.

But, it's not. Things are always moving, trending, rising, falling.

I can say with surety that big money in Real Estate is expecting there to be some rise in sea levels as we look forward.

Folks can laugh at it, make statements that have nothing to do with what I posted or look at a snapshot and think they know the plot of a movie, but for me the money is pretty non-political and non-ideological. And when both of those slants make it near impossible to really know the "truth" (and that's because folks on both sides will gladly distort in their ideological favor), I find that following the money can be a pretty straight forward and accurate approach, if done within the right context.

Perhaps you could be less general. What big real estate moves are you referring to?

As I ( thought I'd) stated, these are my experiences going to and speaking at dozens of real estate conferences a year. It's a huge topic of conversation in terms of where to build, how to build and how to protector lying assets. It's anecdotal and I don't expect my experience to convince anyone, but for me, personally, with such a clouded set of "facts" that are so intermingled with bs politics ( on both sides but the right is a bit more egregious and apparently flippant in attitude toward an issue with potentially very serious implications ) that seeing the market speak and address certain issues that they see as very real speaks volumes to me

 

[Koya]

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

Link to relevance, please.

The relevance is the fact that we see so any reports and everything seems to be slanted either left or right due to political ideology rather than a straight and objective look at the facts. To me it's fairly clear that the pure scientific consensus is something's definitely going on, likely a significant warming trend and/ or wilder weather and swings with a good chance that man made influences are a stein contributor although that last point is most up for debate as to the degree.

So with this confusion I look to the most objective trends that I know of and from the repeated comments and presentations and speeches I've seen, the money is banking on some significant warming and intensification of weather events.

So, politics muddles the issue and capitalism helps, for me, to clear it up.

 

[Spanky267]

Real Estate investors having concerns about their investments in coastal properties doesnt mean they believe global warming is happening or will happen. Just as we've seen with the earthquake in Japan as well as the numerous quakes in California. We make moves to strengthen and shore up infrastructure and buildings in vulnerable areas. Hurrican Sandy showed us that the old wood framed coastal bungalows in New Jersey and New York couldnt survive a storm of nearly any magnitude.

The Japanese earthquake showed that we need to have more robust construction in our energy generation facilities, especially nuclear plants. This is more a trend of making things better, stronger and more resilient than it is a proof that people have global warming concerns.

 

[Koya]

Real Estate investors having concerns about their investments in coastal properties doesnt mean they believe global warming is happening or will happen. Just as we've seen with the earthquake in Japan as well as the numerous quakes in California. We make moves to strengthen and shore up infrastructure and buildings in vulnerable areas. Hurrican Sandy showed us that the old wood framed coastal bungalows in New Jersey and New York couldnt survive a storm of nearly any magnitude.

The Japanese earthquake showed that we need to have more robust construction in our energy generation facilities, especially nuclear plants. This is more a trend of making things better, stronger and more resilient than it is a proof that people have global warming concerns.

I have heard on numerous occasions out of the very mouths of C-Level execs of institutional level capital and development firms that the evidence pours very strongly to climate change and likely warming.

Not sure what else I can say. You don't have to believe me. You don't have to believe that their comments have any weight.

I've heard it straight from the money horses mouths, repeatedly. And I believe that speaks volumes. You can decide for yourself and then at least think are you deciding this objectively or ideologically? That's up to you

 

[RCon]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like?

What would an investment that banks on climate change, that is specifically attributable to man-made causes, occurring look like?

What would an investment that banks on climate change, that is not specifically attributable to man-made causes, occurring look like?

I'm not deflecting, just genuinely interested.

 

[Koya]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like?

What would an investment that banks on climate change, that is specifically attributable to man-made causes, occurring look like?

What would an investment that banks on climate change, that is not specifically attributable to man-made causes, occurring look like?

I'm not deflecting, just genuinely interested.

If my industry did not as a consensus believe CG was coming then (1) there would not be nearly as much time and capital put toward building specific engineering / Retrofitting (2) push toward common infrastructure to protect vulnerable and newly vulnerable areas and (3) I wouldn't hear engineers and high level and c-level execs alike so much clearly stated concern over these expected realities. The first two are investments the last is a consensus stated viewpoint.

To the last two, my industry doesn't so much care what is the cause we just believe it's happening. That said, anecdotally there seems to be a consensus that man made effects are at play but as is true within this thread, that's still up for considerable and fair debate and study.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like?

What would an investment that banks on climate change, that is specifically attributable to man-made causes, occurring look like?

What would an investment that banks on climate change, that is not specifically attributable to man-made causes, occurring look like?

I'm not deflecting, just genuinely interested.

If my industry did not as a consensus believe CG was coming then (1) there would not be nearly as much time and capital put toward building specific engineering / Retrofitting (2) push toward common infrastructure to protect vulnerable and newly vulnerable areas and (3) I wouldn't hear engineers and high level and c-level execs alike so much clearly stated concern over these expected realities. The first two are investments the last is a consensus stated viewpoint.

To the last two, my industry doesn't so much care what is the cause we just believe it's happening. That said, anecdotally there seems to be a consensus that man made effects are at play but as is true within this thread, that's still up for considerable and fair debate and study.

Please offer up some specifics. Exactly what type of engineering/retrofitting is being implemented as a direct result of a belief that global warming is going to change things. I mean, aren't designs changing all the time? I really want to know what specifically is being changed as a result of global warming.

 

[RCon]

Once again, let me point you to what I know to be the best determining factor in this and one angle that cuts through the political BS from both sides:

I know of NO private sector investments on an institutional scale that are banking on climate change NOT occurring.

I know of quite a number of private sector investments on an institutional scale that ARE banking on climate change occuring.

So go ahead, argue foolishly for some ideological cause, even at the risk of doing true harm to the next generations - and potentially our own. The money, including much (most?) of it controlled by rich folk (re: Republican) is banking, quite literally, on climate change occurring, sea levels rising. Real estate and tech are seeing dollars go into this expected outcome.

While it may be difficult to wade through some manure on both sides, but a tremendous amount from some on the right side of the aisle in regard to this issue, and therefore at times difficult to understand the base facts, and while yes, admittedly, there is much we do not know, the money - and a lot of it - is on climate change occurring.

Perhaps that's why the Republican party as a whole wants to so deny it - their backers know the more and the quicker sea levels rise, the sooner and better their investments will pay off. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.

What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like?

What would an investment that banks on climate change, that is specifically attributable to man-made causes, occurring look like?

What would an investment that banks on climate change, that is not specifically attributable to man-made causes, occurring look like?

I'm not deflecting, just genuinely interested.

If my industry did not as a consensus believe CG was coming then (1) there would not be nearly as much time and capital put toward building specific engineering / Retrofitting (2) push toward common infrastructure to protect vulnerable and newly vulnerable areas and (3) I wouldn't hear engineers and high level and c-level execs alike so much clearly stated concern over these expected realities. The first two are investments the last is a consensus stated viewpoint.

To the last two, my industry doesn't so much care what is the cause we just believe it's happening. That said, anecdotally there seems to be a consensus that man made effects are at play but as is true within this thread, that's still up for considerable and fair debate and study.

OK, but here you're suggesting that we "follow the money". To that end, you're (anecdotally) seeing investments that are banking on climate change occurring, but not seeing investments that are banking on climate change not occurring. What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like? If we're not sure what such an investment might look like, how can we say it's not occurring?

As for whether the "follow the money" strategy can lead us to the right answers to our questions, that's certainly possible. The problem here is that the questions are different for different groups of people.

As you note, people making these investments wouldn't particularly care WHY climate change is occurring, just whether or not it is. For them, the question is "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" For policymakers, there are two separate questions: "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?", plus "What are the causes of climate change?" IMO, "follow the money" as you've outlined it doesn't really answer the second question in any useful way, and therefore doesn't lead us to any useful policy recommendations.

 

[jon_mx]

All it takes is some belief that some disaster is possible to want to consider taking some design precautions against such an event. Climate change is a hot topic, so it is natural that it is being considered in the design, whether you think it is a 5 percent chance or a 95 percent chance. That provides zero evidence that such an event is likely to occur or not. It is just something to consider and a hot topic that people are talking about. This is not evidence that big money is making investments banking that dramatic shifts in climate is going to occur.

 

[lakerstan]

Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?

 

[Koya]

Jumping into a meeting so can't get into specifics, but I think you all are really missing my point.

Its near impossible to know what "facts" are "facts" or what political slant a post or a study or an opinion piece may have. How am I, some lay person who is not reading the root reports and vetting which study is legit, where it may be flawed etc.

So, with the lefty alarmists pushing their agenda, the righty deniers vehemently discounting science (this goes beyond just this issue, and I hope folks who are Conservative by nature realize this... between not teaching evolution and the discounting of science, that is a mark against much of the rhetoric on this issue, as well), how can I really get to the root of the matter?

To me, the money talks. Especially when an industry that typically leans right and has strong financial ties to the right makes repeated claims (that I've heard in person) to the contrary of the right in general.

That's a heck of a tie-breaker in my book of admittedly not being able to really know what's what on this subject.

 

[RCon]

Jumping into a meeting so can't get into specifics, but I think you all are really missing my point.

Its near impossible to know what "facts" are "facts" or what political slant a post or a study or an opinion piece may have. How am I, some lay person who is not reading the root reports and vetting which study is legit, where it may be flawed etc.

So, with the lefty alarmists pushing their agenda, the righty deniers vehemently discounting science (this goes beyond just this issue, and I hope folks who are Conservative by nature realize this... between not teaching evolution and the discounting of science, that is a mark against much of the rhetoric on this issue, as well), how can I really get to the root of the matter?

To me, the money talks. Especially when an industry that typically leans right and has strong financial ties to the right makes repeated claims (that I've heard in person) to the contrary of the right in general.

That's a heck of a tie-breaker in my book of admittedly not being able to really know what's what on this subject.

I don't think I've missed your point at all. To paraphrase what I wrote before...

You're suggesting that we "follow the money". To that end, you say (anecdotally) that you're seeing investments that are banking on climate change occurring, but not seeing investments that are banking on climate change not occurring. What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like? If we're not sure what such an investment might look like, how can we say it's not happening, even anecdotally?

As for whether the "follow the money" strategy can lead us to the right answers to our questions, that's certainly possible. The problem here is that the questions are different for different groups of people.

As you note, people making these investments wouldn't particularly care WHY climate change is occurring, just whether or not it is. For them, the question is "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Assuming that your anecdotal observations are accurate, we could conclude that it is more likely than not that yes, climate change is occurring and/or likely to occur.

For policymakers, there are a lot more separate questions than just "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Policymakers should also be asking and answering questions such as: "What are the causes of climate change?", "Is climate change necessarily bad?", "What policies could we implement that might reduce future climate change?", and "What are the likely costs of those policies?"

IMO, "follow the money" as you've outlined it doesn't really answer any of those other questions in any useful way, and therefore doesn't lead us to any useful policy recommendations.

 

[Patriotsfatboy1]

Regardless of what you believe about climate change, can we all agree that putting a bunch of smoke into the air probably isn't a good thing?

What if we are all smoking just a ton of marijuana? How can that not be a good thing?

 

[Koya]

Jumping into a meeting so can't get into specifics, but I think you all are really missing my point.

Its near impossible to know what "facts" are "facts" or what political slant a post or a study or an opinion piece may have. How am I, some lay person who is not reading the root reports and vetting which study is legit, where it may be flawed etc.

So, with the lefty alarmists pushing their agenda, the righty deniers vehemently discounting science (this goes beyond just this issue, and I hope folks who are Conservative by nature realize this... between not teaching evolution and the discounting of science, that is a mark against much of the rhetoric on this issue, as well), how can I really get to the root of the matter?

To me, the money talks. Especially when an industry that typically leans right and has strong financial ties to the right makes repeated claims (that I've heard in person) to the contrary of the right in general.

That's a heck of a tie-breaker in my book of admittedly not being able to really know what's what on this subject.

I don't think I've missed your point at all. To paraphrase what I wrote before...You're suggesting that we "follow the money". To that end, you say (anecdotally) that you're seeing investments that are banking on climate change occurring, but not seeing investments that are banking on climate change not occurring. What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like? If we're not sure what such an investment might look like, how can we say it's not happening, even anecdotally?

As for whether the "follow the money" strategy can lead us to the right answers to our questions, that's certainly possible. The problem here is that the questions are different for different groups of people.

As you note, people making these investments wouldn't particularly care WHY climate change is occurring, just whether or not it is. For them, the question is "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Assuming that your anecdotal observations are accurate, we could conclude that it is more likely than not that yes, climate change is occurring and/or likely to occur.

For policymakers, there are a lot more separate questions than just "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Policymakers should also be asking and answering questions such as: "What are the causes of climate change?", "Is climate change necessarily bad?", "What policies could we implement that might reduce future climate change?", and "What are the likely costs of those policies?"

IMO, "follow the money" as you've outlined it doesn't really answer any of those other questions in any useful way, and therefore doesn't lead us to any useful policy recommendations.

All fair points. I was not discussing this in the context of policy as much as addressing some who seem blind to the fact that there is at least a real climatic change occuring.

If you want to extend that to policy then we can suggest that if you refuse to recognize that change is even happening why would you both to consider policy changes to address a non existent change?

 

[RCon]

Jumping into a meeting so can't get into specifics, but I think you all are really missing my point.

Its near impossible to know what "facts" are "facts" or what political slant a post or a study or an opinion piece may have. How am I, some lay person who is not reading the root reports and vetting which study is legit, where it may be flawed etc.

So, with the lefty alarmists pushing their agenda, the righty deniers vehemently discounting science (this goes beyond just this issue, and I hope folks who are Conservative by nature realize this... between not teaching evolution and the discounting of science, that is a mark against much of the rhetoric on this issue, as well), how can I really get to the root of the matter?

To me, the money talks. Especially when an industry that typically leans right and has strong financial ties to the right makes repeated claims (that I've heard in person) to the contrary of the right in general.

That's a heck of a tie-breaker in my book of admittedly not being able to really know what's what on this subject.

I don't think I've missed your point at all. To paraphrase what I wrote before...You're suggesting that we "follow the money". To that end, you say (anecdotally) that you're seeing investments that are banking on climate change occurring, but not seeing investments that are banking on climate change not occurring. What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like? If we're not sure what such an investment might look like, how can we say it's not happening, even anecdotally?

As for whether the "follow the money" strategy can lead us to the right answers to our questions, that's certainly possible. The problem here is that the questions are different for different groups of people.

As you note, people making these investments wouldn't particularly care WHY climate change is occurring, just whether or not it is. For them, the question is "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Assuming that your anecdotal observations are accurate, we could conclude that it is more likely than not that yes, climate change is occurring and/or likely to occur.

For policymakers, there are a lot more separate questions than just "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Policymakers should also be asking and answering questions such as: "What are the causes of climate change?", "Is climate change necessarily bad?", "What policies could we implement that might reduce future climate change?", and "What are the likely costs of those policies?"

IMO, "follow the money" as you've outlined it doesn't really answer any of those other questions in any useful way, and therefore doesn't lead us to any useful policy recommendations.

All fair points. I was not discussing this in the context of policy as much as addressing some who seem blind to the fact that there is at least a real climatic change occuring.

If you want to extend that to policy then we can suggest that if you refuse to recognize that change is even happening why would you both to consider policy changes to address a non existent change?

I'd suggest you're getting caught up in a common political trap, trying to debate with the idiots on the other side rather than with the educated and reasonable people on the other side. Ignore the idiots and debate with the reasonable people, and don't attribute the claims of the idiots to the reasonable.

 

[Koya]

Jumping into a meeting so can't get into specifics, but I think you all are really missing my point.

Its near impossible to know what "facts" are "facts" or what political slant a post or a study or an opinion piece may have. How am I, some lay person who is not reading the root reports and vetting which study is legit, where it may be flawed etc.

So, with the lefty alarmists pushing their agenda, the righty deniers vehemently discounting science (this goes beyond just this issue, and I hope folks who are Conservative by nature realize this... between not teaching evolution and the discounting of science, that is a mark against much of the rhetoric on this issue, as well), how can I really get to the root of the matter?

To me, the money talks. Especially when an industry that typically leans right and has strong financial ties to the right makes repeated claims (that I've heard in person) to the contrary of the right in general.

That's a heck of a tie-breaker in my book of admittedly not being able to really know what's what on this subject.

I don't think I've missed your point at all. To paraphrase what I wrote before...You're suggesting that we "follow the money". To that end, you say (anecdotally) that you're seeing investments that are banking on climate change occurring, but not seeing investments that are banking on climate change not occurring. What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like? If we're not sure what such an investment might look like, how can we say it's not happening, even anecdotally?

As for whether the "follow the money" strategy can lead us to the right answers to our questions, that's certainly possible. The problem here is that the questions are different for different groups of people.

As you note, people making these investments wouldn't particularly care WHY climate change is occurring, just whether or not it is. For them, the question is "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Assuming that your anecdotal observations are accurate, we could conclude that it is more likely than not that yes, climate change is occurring and/or likely to occur.

For policymakers, there are a lot more separate questions than just "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Policymakers should also be asking and answering questions such as: "What are the causes of climate change?", "Is climate change necessarily bad?", "What policies could we implement that might reduce future climate change?", and "What are the likely costs of those policies?"

IMO, "follow the money" as you've outlined it doesn't really answer any of those other questions in any useful way, and therefore doesn't lead us to any useful policy recommendations.

All fair points. I was not discussing this in the context of policy as much as addressing some who seem blind to the fact that there is at least a real climatic change occuring.

If you want to extend that to policy then we can suggest that if you refuse to recognize that change is even happening why would you both to consider policy changes to address a non existent change?

I'd suggest you're getting caught up in a common political trap, trying to debate with the idiots on the other side rather than with the educated and reasonable people on the other side. Ignore the idiots and debate with the reasonable people, and don't attribute the claims of the idiots to the reasonable.

Unfortunately, on this issue it's tough to see through the BS, its very complicated and even the smartest people in the room admit they don't really know. But everyone else seems either purposefully or subconsciously blinded by their ideological perspective.

 

[jonessed]

Jumping into a meeting so can't get into specifics, but I think you all are really missing my point.

Its near impossible to know what "facts" are "facts" or what political slant a post or a study or an opinion piece may have. How am I, some lay person who is not reading the root reports and vetting which study is legit, where it may be flawed etc.

So, with the lefty alarmists pushing their agenda, the righty deniers vehemently discounting science (this goes beyond just this issue, and I hope folks who are Conservative by nature realize this... between not teaching evolution and the discounting of science, that is a mark against much of the rhetoric on this issue, as well), how can I really get to the root of the matter?

To me, the money talks. Especially when an industry that typically leans right and has strong financial ties to the right makes repeated claims (that I've heard in person) to the contrary of the right in general.

That's a heck of a tie-breaker in my book of admittedly not being able to really know what's what on this subject.

I don't think I've missed your point at all. To paraphrase what I wrote before...You're suggesting that we "follow the money". To that end, you say (anecdotally) that you're seeing investments that are banking on climate change occurring, but not seeing investments that are banking on climate change not occurring. What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like? If we're not sure what such an investment might look like, how can we say it's not happening, even anecdotally?

As for whether the "follow the money" strategy can lead us to the right answers to our questions, that's certainly possible. The problem here is that the questions are different for different groups of people.

As you note, people making these investments wouldn't particularly care WHY climate change is occurring, just whether or not it is. For them, the question is "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Assuming that your anecdotal observations are accurate, we could conclude that it is more likely than not that yes, climate change is occurring and/or likely to occur.

For policymakers, there are a lot more separate questions than just "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Policymakers should also be asking and answering questions such as: "What are the causes of climate change?", "Is climate change necessarily bad?", "What policies could we implement that might reduce future climate change?", and "What are the likely costs of those policies?"

IMO, "follow the money" as you've outlined it doesn't really answer any of those other questions in any useful way, and therefore doesn't lead us to any useful policy recommendations.

All fair points. I was not discussing this in the context of policy as much as addressing some who seem blind to the fact that there is at least a real climatic change occuring.If you want to extend that to policy then we can suggest that if you refuse to recognize that change is even happening why would you both to consider policy changes to address a non existent change?

I'd suggest you're getting caught up in a common political trap, trying to debate with the idiots on the other side rather than with the educated and reasonable people on the other side. Ignore the idiots and debate with the reasonable people, and don't attribute the claims of the idiots to the reasonable.

Asking someone to be more specific about a largely anecdotal claim is in no way unreasonable.

 

[Ilov80s]

Can we stop labeling "opinion pieces" articles?

If it was printed in a paper or magazine or online publication, it is an article.

 

[RCon]

Jumping into a meeting so can't get into specifics, but I think you all are really missing my point.

Its near impossible to know what "facts" are "facts" or what political slant a post or a study or an opinion piece may have. How am I, some lay person who is not reading the root reports and vetting which study is legit, where it may be flawed etc.

So, with the lefty alarmists pushing their agenda, the righty deniers vehemently discounting science (this goes beyond just this issue, and I hope folks who are Conservative by nature realize this... between not teaching evolution and the discounting of science, that is a mark against much of the rhetoric on this issue, as well), how can I really get to the root of the matter?

To me, the money talks. Especially when an industry that typically leans right and has strong financial ties to the right makes repeated claims (that I've heard in person) to the contrary of the right in general.

That's a heck of a tie-breaker in my book of admittedly not being able to really know what's what on this subject.

I don't think I've missed your point at all. To paraphrase what I wrote before...You're suggesting that we "follow the money". To that end, you say (anecdotally) that you're seeing investments that are banking on climate change occurring, but not seeing investments that are banking on climate change not occurring. What would an investment that banks on climate change not occurring look like? If we're not sure what such an investment might look like, how can we say it's not happening, even anecdotally?

As for whether the "follow the money" strategy can lead us to the right answers to our questions, that's certainly possible. The problem here is that the questions are different for different groups of people.

As you note, people making these investments wouldn't particularly care WHY climate change is occurring, just whether or not it is. For them, the question is "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Assuming that your anecdotal observations are accurate, we could conclude that it is more likely than not that yes, climate change is occurring and/or likely to occur.

For policymakers, there are a lot more separate questions than just "Is climate change occurring and/or likely to occur?" Policymakers should also be asking and answering questions such as: "What are the causes of climate change?", "Is climate change necessarily bad?", "What policies could we implement that might reduce future climate change?", and "What are the likely costs of those policies?"

IMO, "follow the money" as you've outlined it doesn't really answer any of those other questions in any useful way, and therefore doesn't lead us to any useful policy recommendations.

All fair points. I was not discussing this in the context of policy as much as addressing some who seem blind to the fact that there is at least a real climatic change occuring.If you want to extend that to policy then we can suggest that if you refuse to recognize that change is even happening why would you both to consider policy changes to address a non existent change?

I'd suggest you're getting caught up in a common political trap, trying to debate with the idiots on the other side rather than with the educated and reasonable people on the other side. Ignore the idiots and debate with the reasonable people, and don't attribute the claims of the idiots to the reasonable.

Asking someone to be more specific about a largely anecdotal claim is in no way unreasonable.

Look, I'll say it. Anyone who makes the argument that the climate isn't changing is an idiot. The climate has changed for billions of years; why would it all of a sudden stop now?

Anyone who makes the argument that the earth isn't currently in a warming trend is probably pretty damn misinformed too, although less of an idiot than someone who flat out says the climate isn't changing at all. It's probably not worth arguing with either group, though, as data likely won't change their mind.

In Koya's case, he's trying to find more data to "prove" to these groups that the climate is changing. I'm suggesting it's not worth his time, and that he should instead focus on debating the more reasonable and informed opponents.

 

[RCon]

Can we stop labeling "opinion pieces" articles?

If it was printed in a paper or magazine or online publication, it is an article.

All (published) opinion pieces are articles, but not all articles are opinion pieces? I see what you did there.