What will happen in the New Year?
Any fortune Tellers out there?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Search This Blog
Useful Links
YOU CAN HELP NOW !!!
Tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors, politicians, etc to google give2attain or send them this address now !!!http://give2attain.blogspot.com/ Then I promise to keep posting unique and/or helpful thoughts, and hosting open polite dialogue. Thank You !!!
Trying for Balance
G2A Email and Rules
email: give2get@live.com
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
G2A will only discuss things that are general public knowledge. (ie no privileged info)
G2A will only link to public / posted documents. (ie school and other websites)
G2A will not post based on singular specific personal conversations or information without permission from the information provider.
G2a will only post after observing common themes, issues, discussions, etc. (ie it is out there and people are talking about it)
G2A will moderate any comments that apply derogatory labels. Be it to G2A, another commenter, group of people, etc.
G2A will moderate any comment that includes offensive language. (ie swearing)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2021
(173)
-
▼
December
(12)
- Trump Needs an Intervention
- The Stock Crystal Ball?
- Xmas: It could be Worse
- Happy Holidays vs Merry Christmas
- Manchin Buries BBB?
- US is a Flawed Democracy?
- Extreme Weather Causation?
- History by Trump / O'Rielly?
- FOX Loses Credibility
- Trump For US Debt Default
- Democracy to End in 2024?
- School Shootings
-
▼
December
(12)
About Me
- John
- I am married and we have 3 adult daughters and a dog. We live in Plymouth MN. My interests are learning, communicating, home improvement projects, motorcycling, boating, and other outside activities. Thank you for reading my blog and have a great day !!!
105 comments:
As a matter of policy, I am bullish on stocks. I firmly believe, for a number of reasons, that the stock market is rigged to go up. I have to say, that belief was tested by the pandemic. Like many others, I panicked in it's early stages, but what I failed to realize was that Trump would put the interests of the markets over the health and well being of people. Bad for us, but good for the markets. Those of us who managed to survive did well.
--Hiram
Forbes gives pretty good advice. Forbes
Or maybe you would like to place a bet on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change? You seem pretty convinced that will go up. }:->
Hiram,
Trump spent like a friggin PROGRESSIVE on METH to give almost everybody money.
And before that he passed unpaid for tax cuts which increased deficits.
So yes the National Debt ballooned and many citizens have a bunch of money to put somewhere.
So the stock market valuation has exploded, especially for Tech stocks.
Jerry,
Yes. Stocks and Equities seem like the rational way to earn a rate greater than inflation. However if there are not enough real assets or profit growth to justify the investment. Then it just become gambling with the loss of wealth as a potential consequence.
And yes I assume insurance companies will need to keep raising premiums. Maybe construction companies are a good investment as the fires, tornadoes, floods, etc increase in intensity.
I think downplaying the seriousness of the pandemic by Trump was very helpful to the markets. He didn't panic even when panic was the appropriate response. He signaled that he would work to keep the economy as open as possible even if it meant the loss of life.
I have never thought that income tax cuts were helpful to markets. They are most beneficial to managers, not shareholders. That's why markets tend to do better under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents. Republican presidents are better for the managerial class.
--Hiram
Yes he did.
Of course tax cuts and huge government borrowing drive market values and inflation. There is so much of our kid's money sloshing around this economy that either is spent or needs to be invested.
No wonder market valuations are nuts and people are gambling in the crypto currency markets.
I am just curious what will trigger the "NEXT GREAT RECESSION" !!!
I assume it will be when American consumers slow their spending or When the DEBT TRAIN Hits Us
Food for Thought
Of course tax cuts and huge government borrowing drive market values and inflation.
A strong economy means inflation. If there were no inflation, the same people who are complaining about inflation now, would be kvetching about the sluggish economy.
--Hiram
I think you should study the supply demand curve a bit closer.
Prices can rise whether the economy is "good" or "bad"...
When the economy is bad, deflation is more the concern. It's tough to raise prices when people already can't afford things.
up
My favorite movie about economics and banking is "It's a Wonderful Life". In the famous run on the bank system, you notice the problem is deflation. Potter is essentially buying up the housing supply of Bedford Falls on the cheap. In the depression, his dollars became more valuable, not less.
The challenge for Republicans in office is always the competency issue. Committed as they are to the view that government is incompetent, they find it ideologically inconsistent to govern competently. It's why their failures in times of crisis are always so catastrophic. It's why in Republican administrations, hundred year storms occur every six months.
==Hiram
Yes.
A lack of demand is one reason prices can fall.
Or an increase in supply.
And that includes money. Print too much and it loses value. Simple as that. Prevent the FED from "printing" money to cover government overspending, and you solve the problem of inflation, but what happens next? Anyway, you asked for advice and Forbes offered very good advice, IMHO.
Yes the Forbes advice was good if this is not a big bubble, and/or you have a long time before you retire, and/or you are RICH.
Unfortunately for most retiring / retired American's, that is not the situation.
Imagine only having a net worth of ~$250,000 and much of that being in your home. :-O
And half of US citizens are worse off than that.
In a depression, supply goes down. Retailers become cautious in creating inventory. This is one of my favorite videos on business problems during recessions. I am sure I have posted it before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tw688Kbjy4&t=11s&ab_channel=BankruptingAmerica
Note how the boss in recession is unwilling to expand, to increase demand or create additional supply. And in this limited context her decisions might be right. The problem she has is what happens when the economy comes out of recession. Having failed to invest in her business when prices were low, will she able to expand quickly enough to handle the increase in business or will her more aggressive, risk taking competitors eat her lunch?
--Hiram
Being a successful Manager or Business Owner definitely requires brains and back bone.
A lot of companies have expanded themselves right into bankruptcy...
It is quite the balancing act...
A lot of companies have expanded themselves right into bankruptcy...
She was being cautious, but there is never any guarantee that the cautious choice is the right choice or even the safe choice. By holding back, she was taking a risk with her business. Maybe that was the right choice, but I don't think it was the right choice to ignore that risk or not to prepare if the bet she was making didn't pan out. A decision not to do nothing is still a decision.
--Hiram
I have no idea if she was being overly cautious or wise from that short clip.
But most days I am very happy that I am not wearing her shoes...
All that responsibility and all those Monday morning quarterbacks second guessing her. :-)
I have no idea if she was being overly cautious or wise from that short clip.
Of course we don't know the outcome, but it's clear the risk she was taking. What is less clear is that she was aware of the risk she was taking. No one in the video was stating the obvious, that our competitors can't be counted on to stand pat, can't be counted on using this money they were making in a time of recession to invest in the business to take full advantage of an improving economy, should that emerge.
Did it? I think that video was made pretty much at the bottom of the recession of 2008. Those were bad times but got better from that point on. The Obama years were pretty good times economically. Certainly they were for markets, but they weren't good times for everyone. Would they be good times for that business? We don't know.
When I cite that video, it's usually to make the point that things are always pretty much the same, that it's the attitude towards them that changes. The worries that the boss cited are always with us, the future is always uncertain. It's our reaction to that is different during a recession, or when times are good.
--Hiram
That is why I like working in cross functional teams.
It often takes longer, but we usually come up with better decisions, plans, solutions.
Here is one of my favorite reminders when team members want to skip steps...
Since I manage the Quoting, Design, Manufacture, Installation and Verification of Engineered to Order systems... Parsing through the fluff, attitudes, opinions, claims, etc to ensure Step 10 is achieved quickly and efficiently is my endless challenge.
1. When a customer describes what s/he wants, it tends to be true that s/he always overstates it.
2. The product owner gathers the customer's requirement and summaries it.
3. Engineers follow PO's summary and make it work. Well, to some extent...
4. Then programmers will write it. However, when you test it, it is not workable.
5. Finally, we have a product, so the sales can start their job by exaggerating its features.
6. When you want to check the document, it is always nowhere to be found.
7. What the operations build is simply a rope. Gosh, I don't know what to say.
8. Customers are billed for extraordinary experiences.
9. The way Helpdesk solves problems is just simple and "radical".
10. Voila! It turns out what the customer truly wants is just a simple tire swing.
Speaking of skipping steps....
1. Prove that greenhouse gasses are the major factor in global temperatures.
2. Prove that CO2 is the principal greenhouse gas.
3. Prove that manmade CO2 is the principal driver of total CO2.
4. Prove that the increase in manmade and thus total CO2 will dramatically alter temperatures and,
5. Prove that change will be "catastrophic" in some reasonably foreseeable time frame.
THEN, we can engage in international efforts to spend massive amounts of money to promote costly and unreliable "green" energy, even forbidding developing nations from helping their people live better lives, while ignoring the many benefits of a warmer, greener planet that may have naturally arisen.
For Your Enjoyment
Policy shouldn't be dependent on what we can prove. Winning an argument doesn't mean one is right. Life is all about making decisions with inadequate information.
We are about to make a decision about climate change, if we haven't already made it. With the election of a Republican Congress next year, and for the rest of the decade, a virtual certainty, climate change will not be addressed as an issue at least until 2032. We made part of that decision in 2020, and we will make the remainder of that decision this year.
I just wonder how confident Republicans in their belief that climate change isn't an issue. Are they really willing to bet the future of humanity on it? In any event, that's what they are asking the voters to do.
--Hiram
As Judith consistently seems to say...
It is an important issue that should be worked on...
But maybe not worthy of all the politicization and panic...
Cleaner is better, but solar panels, wind turbines and trillions of pounds of batteries may not be the answer.
Where does nuclear and "clean coal in poor countries" fit into the equation / policies?
Dr. Judith is remarkably on point. Zero evidence of anything to panic about, let alone commit billions of dollars to a non-solution. IIRC correctly, enough batteries to see Minnesota through 3 days of no wind and no sun would consume 600% of the entire world supply of lithium. It's just not practical, and nuclear--especially thorium-- is. So is coal, especially with in-situ gasification. Time to stop worrying about CO2-- plant food-- and solve our other problems.
Jerry,
If the Left is on the too reactionary end...
You are certainly on the "Let our Children Burn" end...
So far you still deny there is a human caused problem.
I don't believe in certainties or panaceas. I don't think it absolutely necessary to prove causation in order to deal with effect. I believe that things that I am unable to prove are true. I certainly will not disregard truth simply because I don't have the capacity to prove it. Life isn't the Oxford debating society.
Republican issue management is working with me. In a lot of ways, I have given up. I think we have already made the crucial decisions concerning climate change. Our choice to elect enough Republicans to block action on it was a decision that it was a phony issue, fake news if you will, and it's a decision from which it is too late to turn back. I truly hope, people on my side of these issues are wrong, and the Republicans on the other side of these issues may be right.
--Hiram
This quote just showed up on my FB. It seems to fit here well.
"It is so easy to be wrong,
and persist in being wrong,
when the costs of being wrong
are paid by others..." Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell is very often correct, and is in this case, just not, I think, in the way you think he is. Imagine for a moment that the 20 billion taxpayer dollars being spent annually by the US, went to solving our other problems? Or imagine what we could all do with the money we are now spending on higher electricity costs and higher gasoline costs, along with all the other costs driven up by this entirely futile exercise to control climate by changing 4 ppm of the atmosphere? We are all paying dearly for "the most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history." It isn't that the climate isn't changing, but that reducing man-made CO2 does not and cannot have a significant effect. The science proves it, and all else is raw speculation.
"It is so easy to be right,
and persist in being right,
when the costs of being right
are paid by others..."
--Hiram, with thanks to Thomas Sowell
I watch "Band of Brothers" available on HBO Max often, more often than I should maybe. The show obsesses me. In this context, it is a very powerful reminder of how easy it is to be right when the costs of being right are borne by others.
--Hiram
Jerry (I assume),
So who is going to the price if you are wrong?
"It isn't that the climate isn't changing, but that reducing man-made CO2 does not and cannot have a significant effect. The science proves it, and all else is raw speculation."
Hiram,
I have no idea what you are writing about?
There is a story about Thomas Edison inventing the light bulb. It is said that he tried a thousand or so filaments before he found one that worked. Someone asked him what it was like failing to so many times. Edison responded, that not one of those attempts failed because he learned from each one. He found what worked by eliminating what didn't work, and it was that process that succeeded.
I believe that strictly in terms of quantity, we don't succeed many more times than we do succeed. Stuff doesn't work out many more times than stuff that does. But we don't notice that because failure in that sense is temporary, while success is permanent. It's that one in a thousand success that lasts and becomes the standard.
--Hiram
Jerry (I assume),
What science? Source please.
So who is going to the price if you are wrong?
As I said, I am a huge fans of "Band of Brothers". But what about the other side? What would "Band of Brothers" look like from the German perspective? As it happens, in the last episode there is a scene that tells us a little about that. It's in a speech given by a German officer to his troops. Among other things, much of the speech could have been given to the victors of the war, making the point that in war, winning and losing are much the same, that being in the wrong can be much like being in the right.
The answer to the question is "we do", and we do it in a variety of ways. Accepting the cost of someone else being wrong is one reason we require car insurance. But because of the Edison thing, I am okay with accepting the risks of being wrong because it is so much more rewarding being right. One success so easily outweighs a thousand failures, something I am reminded of every time I turn on a light.
--Hiram
I have no idea what you are writing about?
If you give me a little more to work with, I will try to explain. Generally, I try to dismiss the pessimism displayed by Sowell's remarks. You can't have rewards without risks.
One of my favorite movies about capitalism is "The Wheeler Dealers" based on a novel by the guy who later became the financial writer "Adam Smith". It was made in the 1960s and is often on TCM. The lead character is an oil tycoon played by James Garner. The Garner character is presented as the archetypal capitalist and dealmaker. What makes his deals so attractive to investors is that if they succeed, his investors make huge profits. If they fail, the government absorbs most of the loss. So who pays for failure? We did then in the 1960s and I assure you it works exactly the same way today in this third decade of the 21st century.
--Hiram
Talking about being wrong, and bearing the costs of it, I am reminded of the business career of Steve Jobs. One of the most famous commercials ever made was shown in the 1984 Super Bowl, the distance runner smashing the image of Big Brother. You have seen it. What is often forgotten is that the computer it advertised was a business failure which contributed to the firing of Steve Jobs from Apple. IBM, as represented by Big Brother in the commercial, won that battle at least in the short term. Their commercials featured the cast of MASH. You can see them on Youtube.
Who bore the costs of Steve Jobs being wrong? Who got stuck with the bill? Not Jobs certainly. He walked away with the billions he earned, and the millions he got paid in severance. It was the shareholders of Apple who took the hit, who had to put up with years of a stagnant stock price, and ultimate near failure of the company. Who saved the company from the wrong direction Steve Jobs took it? Maybe Thomas Sowell could tell you.
--Hiram
Yes research is expensive and time consuming.
That is why we reward the successful creative folks with Patents.
So they can earn back what was spent / invested.
Yes sometimes the costs are attributed randomly and incorrectly.
And your examples support Sowell's quote.
It was easier for Jobs to be wrong, since he did not bear the cost.
Or the Used car salesman for that fact.
I still do not understand this...
"It is so easy to be right,
and persist in being right,
when the costs of being right
are paid by others..."
--Hiram, with thanks to Thomas Sowell
We were right in fighting WW II. But the costs were paid by others. It's often the case that the costs of what we do fall on others.
--Hiram
I suppose we could think of it in climate change terms. We have pretty much decided that there isn't anything we can do about climate change. If we wrong, and it is pretty easy to be wrong, the costs will be paid by others. Of course, if we are right in dealing with climate change, the benefits will go to others.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Actually the costs of US intervention in WWII were mostly paid for by the citizens of the USA within ~10 years of the event.
Most people think we humans can do things to reduce the severity of climate change, it is folks like Jerry who are happy to deny this and pass the costs forward.
And I think that argument has entered a new space. Should humans / citizens pay the costs incurred by their own generation?
The old folks like yourself benefitted / benefit from the low cost energy, low taxes and high government spending... And you are likely leaving a MASSIVE DEBT and a warming world... Do you feel guilty? Any urge to right this selfish behavior?
Source? The IPCC, EPA, Judith Curry, NASA, simple math, observations of costs and availability. Until you can tell me, with reasonable certainty, how old your grandchildren will be when the planet suddenly becomes uninhabitable /because of/ "anthropogenic" CO2, we are much better off adapting to whatever "climate change" occurs, regardless of cause. And it is much cheaper to do so. The risk is in spending vast sums to prevent something that we do not know for certain will happen, nor how to prevent it happening, or even if it can be prevented at all.
I do understand the view that whether something is true or not depends on the degree we can prove it. For me, the Pythagorean Theorem has never been true, because I lack the skill or knowledge I would need to prove it.
--Hiram
In a political sense climate change isn't complicated. We can either decide to do something, or we can decide to do nothing. The choice we are in the process of making is to do nothing. That the choice people are making when they choose to vote Republican. And for all I know, the Republican voters may be right. The environment is chaotic. We are incapable of proving causes and facts. We are incapable of knowing things with certainty. What I would point out over and over again, is that our ability to prove something has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is true. The environment, just like viruses, doesn't care what we think about it.
--Hiram
This is an interesting thread...
We have Jerry who supports doing nothing and accelerating the use of fossil fuels until we can prove "when the planet suddenly becomes uninhabitable"...
And Hiram who thinks we are doing nothing even though our country has ten of thousands of wind turbines and millions of solar panels in place. And he thinks we should take even more money from some other budget and spend it whether there is proof or not.
No wonder the country struggles politically...
i wouldn't say nothing is being done. Lots of individuals are doing lots of things. It's more a question of whether things will be done on a governmental level.
Voting Republican is a vote for the idea that either climate change doesn't exist, or in the alternative, that there is nothing government should do about it. Others are free to do what they like mostly.
For myself, while I am no scientist, and not at all well read in the science of climate change, I do have a sense that when we have severe tornados in December, and a White House buried in snow, something might be up. But given that Republicans will almost certainly set policy for at least a decade starting in 2023, and that lack of unity among Democrats prevents them from setting policy now, I think Republican policy choices will prevail. I hope the party that thought electing Trump was a good idea, has somehow figured things out.
--Hiram
Well hopefully the Progressives agree to pass something less expensive / extreme.
Get this straight: I do not support "accelerating the use of fossil fuels." Thanks to fracking and natural gas, the US is the ONLY nation who, while not a party to the Paris accords thanks to Trump, and no credit to Biden for putting us back into an agreement that will cost billions and do NOTHING for the climate (the EPA and IPCC essentially agree on this), actually reduced CO2 emissions. I simply support cheap, readily available and reliable energy, from whatever source. I like coal as gasification or pebble bed, because it is more efficient, thus cheaper, and the fact it produces less CO2 that way doesn't matter to me. I certainly will not condemn third world people to penury and squalor because we don't want them burning coal. Nor do I want to stop (even if we could) the "greening of the earth (and desert) because of the extra CO2.
Meanwhile we have ample evidence that windmills and solar are unreliable, expensive, an ecological disaster based on the mining and disposal, not to mention bird deaths, and dubious reducers of CO2 over their life cycle. Meanwhile, EVERY climate model has been proven wrong-- too "hot"-- compared to the actual data. ALL of the evidence, taken together, says that "government action" is entirely a non-solution to a non-problem. And why are we surprised if that is true? As much as you may want to believe something else, ...
Take the red pill.
By the way, Hiram, tornadoes, floods, droughts, rain, hurricanes, are all within or below historic ranges. AND you cannot possibly distinguish these events as being due to manmade climate change or to normal and natural climate change. They are identical, regardless of cause.
Hiram, tornadoes, floods, droughts, rain, hurricanes, are all within or below historic ranges.
That may or may not be the case. But what I am pretty sure of, even as a non scientist, is that weather conditions do now know what their historical ranges are. And that you are betting the future of humanity on something that doesn't affect the weather.
--Hiram
Jerry,
Doing nothing is supporting "accelerating the use of fossil fuels."
You are correct, they are cheap in the short run.
And the costs are paid in the future.
Therefore as the population grows and their hunger for power grows, so will the usage.
So if you do not support subsidizing cleaner energy...
As discussed before, plants can only use / converts so much CO2. The rest just builds up in the atmosphere and traps heat.
Hiram,
Jerry is correct that climate change likely has had minimal impact on weather yet.
However it would be foolish to discount totally all the strange record breaking things that have been happening recently.
And if this is it just getting started, it will be a REAL mess in a decade or so.
Now if the plants could use all that extra CO2...
It would not be building up in the atmosphere.
Jerry is correct that climate change likely has had minimal impact on weather yet.
"Likely"? We are supposed to base policy on the flip of a coin?
--Hiram
You said being wrong or correct does not matter... :-)
You said being wrong or correct does not matter... :-)
No. The climate doesn't care what my political views are.
--Hiram
"We are supposed to base policy on the flip of a coin?"
"The climate doesn't care what my political views are."
So what should we base policy and massive expenditures / borrowing on?
They are NOT record breaking, and if they were, how long have we kept good records? And again, how would you know these are not just naturally occurring? The only link between severe weather and "climate change" exists in the minds of alarmists and propagandists, yet you believe it?
"a real mess in a decade or so." Yeah, right. Right now actual global temperatures, regardless of cause, are rising at about 1.3 degrees per century. Considering that's what they did in the last century and we're still here, I don't know what you're so all-fired worried about. Considering the numerous failed predictions of the alarmists (no more snow by 2010, Ice-free Arctic, polar bears extinct, Pacific islands disappear) one must treat any predictions as fanciful, at best.
I do not support subsidizing (or mandating) "Green energy" that is unreliable, expensive and of dubious value to the environment as a whole, let alone to "prevent climate change." If government wants to support research into things like lithium fusion or fast breeder nuclear, or waste MHD, great, but let free-market private enterprise bring it to market. If it is cheaper, equally reliable and available to coal, we will all happily buy it, and if it produces less CO2, who cares?
what should we base policy and massive expenditures / borrowing on?
It's a science issue. We should talk to scientists.
--Hiram
Hi Jerry,
December tornadoes in MN... Really?
Yes there are whackos / alarmists on both sides of the issue.
It is interesting when you just make up things. Maybe that is why you like Trump. :-)
And yes, that is why you support the ever increasing use of fossil fuels.
You want the "current market" to decide "long term issues".
Hi Hiram,
The scientists are still researching and prognosticating.
Besides since this involves many "non-science" trade offs,
it has to come from somewhere else.
One example...
How much energy cost increase is our society willing to fund for what change?
Interesting Weather Firsts 2020
And for 2021
How much? most public opinion surveys say people are willing to pay up to 5$/ month to "stop climate change," and that is only when they are told that this expense CAN stop climate change, when the SCIENCE says it cannot. (BTW, we are already paying more than that, and MN utilities have just asked for a 20% rate hike.) IF the computer models are correct (which they are not and cannot be) manmade CO2 is not a problem, and if they are WRONG, manmade CO2 is not a problem. UNLESS, of course, we get stampeded by governments into doing some really, really stupid stuff to solve this "problem."
Yes, I realize that you are okay making our children and grand children pay your bills.
That was proven long ago. (ie artificially low taxes and now energy costs) Oh well.
And now you want to use polls of the people who gave us the largest US National Debt in History to create energy policy. That may be worse than Hiram's scientist idea.
You are correct, it has to be a global effort. Even though the USA creates 15% of issue, we are still only 4% of the world's population.
Have it your way. A rich country like ours uses more of the world's resources to be so. Is the solution to turn us all into paupers like the rest of the world, or to allow the rest of the world to develop as best they can? Rich countries can afford to curb pollution; poor countries will happily make the trade-off to become "rich." You, OTOH, either hate Americans or you hate everybody else and want to deny them the better life that cheap, abundant energy provides.
And you simply continue your unshakeable religious belief that manmade CO2 is creating "catastrophic warming" and that it is a problem that we can and must solve. OK, so what is your solution, that guarantees the "catastrophe" is avoided yet has no seriously bad side-effects? You seem to be like those politicians who want to simply impose limits on how much CO2 a coal-fired power plant can produce, simply denying the science that the chemical equation for burning coal is: C+O2 = CO2. The only way to reduce CO2 output is to burn less coal and produce less energy. NOT a solution. What is your solution?
I don't know what the solution is. What I do know is that a vote for Republicans is a choice not to find one. It represents a decision to believe that climate change isn't a problem, or in the alternative, it isn't a problem which has a solution. If that's the choice we make, at the very least I think it must be made clear that we are making it. We must not allow it to be a default choice, or one that we deceive ourselves into thinking that we are not making.
--Hiram
Jerry,
It seems to me that you are saying we should go back to 1970 before catalytic converters, when lead was in the gas, before expensive diesel engine emissions systems, before plant exhaust stacks had to have expensive scrubbers, etc. I mean your argument seems to be that cheap energy is the goal, no matter the consequences or who bears them.
The good news is that many people seem to understand that low cost energy that pollutes and causes other long term problems is NOT a good long term plan. Therefore our society and the world do pay a lot for systems to clean the fuel or improve the power generation process.
Of course burning less fossil fuel or using it differently is part of the solution. As is finding new ways to capture CO2 and other Green House gases, while finding new ways to meet the world's ever growing energy needs. It is quite the challenge, will not be free and will not fix itself. Well unless we all die...
Humans are a rather new variable on this Earth. Of course, we impacted the environmental balance.
Hiram,
It is hard to disagree with you when Jerry's views / denial of a problem seem typical of the GOP.
However I sometimes wonder if it is the Progressive's over zealous comments / policies that are what makes this a GOP talking point.
Would the GOP be more receptive to changes if approached differently?
Though it does seem hard for citizens to focus on long term problems.
I mean we all clearly know that the deficits, entitlements and the national debt interest charge are leading us to disaster and NO ONE seems interested in fixing it if it impacts their pocket book today.
How can we expect citizens to take the long term view on something as complicated as fuel sources and their unintended long term consequences?
The citizens of the USA are unfortunately very self centered, uninformed and irrational... We will apparently get what we deserve. :-O
What seems to you is totally incorrect. By most accounts, the air is 95% cleaner than it was in 1970, and we are all the more prosperous for it. We could afford it. Liberians cannot. The marginal cost of these improvements was not that high, either, compared to the trillions anticipated for "green energy" and that assumes that CO2 is a pollutant, which it isn't, certainly not in the "resources out of place" definition.
And you simply assume, with zero evidence, that "capturing CO2" is part of a solution, when you haven't proved the NEED for a solution to CO2, nor provided a means of generating cheap, reliable and abundant energy without creating CO2 or OTHER pollutants. Yes, Ohio State has a means to double the efficiency of coal burning, making it cheaper and more plentiful; I believe they are building the pilot plant so of course we should do that. To say we shouldn't burn coal would end this great idea, all in the pursuit of some phantasm of "preventing climate change."
I grow ever more curious as to what, other than some religious experience, convinces you that God/Mother Nature is incapable of managing the temperature of this planet as He/She has done for billions of years already? The hype over "global warming" and the subsequent overreaction in policy is VASTLY out of proportion to the world's problems. Republicans have been saying, for a long time, that we value a common-sense "all of the above" energy strategy focusing on low cost and reliability. Why is that wrong?
However I sometimes wonder if it is the Progressive's over zealous comments / policies that are what makes this a GOP talking point.
My own view is that Republicans like to set the agenda, to frame the issue, and then sift through the data and find statements that support their framing. This is easy to do, because Democrats aren't very disciplined in their messaging. Democrats are very disciplined at all, actually. There are certain things you can always count on Republicans saying. Anything Democrat support will be characterized as extreme, socialist, or even Communist. Democrats will then be accused of hypocrisy and double standards. They will certainly always be accused of overreaching, and of being divisive. I tend not to hear many of these charges, because they tend to be stock charges, without relevance to the specific situation in which they are made. But also, they are such cliches, I tend to tune them out. But I am not their intended audience.
--Hiram
Yes the air is cleaner and safer in most communities.
I assume you have not priced a catalytic converter lately, or the equivalent more expensive version on big diesel engines. And over the 50 years since 1971, I am sure the cost was HUGE.
And I can not even imagine what scrubbers, low sulfur coal and diesel fuel costs.
But breathing clean air is somewhat "priceless".
Sulfur is not a pollutant either when it is in the correct place and the correct ppm.
God / Mother Nature will manage it just fine... That does not mean that billions of humans will not die in the process. I mean maybe humans will just be the next dinosaurs...
Hiram, and yet if you look, Democrats have whole industries devoted to "messaging" and "framing" of the issues. I attended one of the classes and was appalled at how blatantly and severely the truth is "spun."
John... BS. There is no manmade climate crisis on the horizon, and it is monstrous arrogance to believe it. If we can avoid thermonuclear winter we'll be fine. In the meantime, we ought to worry about how and why we are digging up all that lithium, cobalt, etc. and leaving big scars in the earth, along with a big carbon footprint, and why we are killing 1/2 million birds a year. Small effects, to be sure, but when they are unnecessary? Why do you hate the environment?
Oh, and I am just really curious about this "millions will die." Those Pacific islands that were supposed to disappear under water are stable or getting BIGGER. People live in annual average temperatures from 12 degrees (Barrow, AK) to 82 degrees (Cairo Egypt, 20 million people). Where is another 2 degrees going to kill people?
As for catalytic converters, remember they were mandated by government, and are now the target of thieves (legislation proposed to address it). The bad side of good intentions.
My point is that the first 90% or so of pollution control costs 10%, and the next 10% of control costs another 90%-- ten times as much or more-- not a value proposition.
Democrats have whole industries devoted to "messaging" and "framing" of the issues.
Republicans do it themselves. The problem is that Democrats rely on industries to do that.
--Hiram
For those willing to learn
Hiram,
Yes. Jerry's comment is like the pot calling the kettle black...
"Republicans do it themselves." Of course, if all you have to relate is the truth and common sense, you don't need industrial-grade "spinners."
Meanwhile, we have deflected from the larger issue. Why are our politicians continuing to push a non-solution to a non-problem?
I am not sure what Hiram was talking about.
Since the GOP / Trump have many disingenuous "spinners" and out right liars.
Another example
Jerry, Your ability to deny reality and science is truly amazing.
It is sad when people become rigid and stagnate... Oh well...
Tell me, please, exactly WHAT science am I denying? Is it perhaps some small point that might contradict the overall truth, because that is all I have seen from you. That, and simply accepting what some people SAY about the science, rather than looking at the actual data for yourself.
Pretty much anything that disagrees with your very rigid beliefs.
Human population is growing rapidly
Human power reqts are growing even more rapidly
Green house gases increasing
Artic sea ice and Glaciers declining
Oceans and Surface Temps are Increasing
Sea Levels are Increasing
And your answer is... "God/Mother Nature" will manage it...
How exactly do you think a deity is going to adjust for this change in their well balanced environment / world?
You are definitely stuck in a rut.
My biggest curiosity / worry is what happens when the ice has melted.
Will it be like my beer cooler on a sunny day... I really dislike hot beer...
Maybe your solution is coming...
Nuclear winter as people fight over the artic???
Here is a link to an interesting / disturbing dashboard.
As I suspected.
1. You have a very subjective and unscientific view of the problem, its magnitude and timing, certainly not indicative of any solution. You do not even have clear evidence of a causal link, just a hypothesis called "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming." In pure scientific terms, we are still testing that hypothesis for the next 80 years.
2. You are worried. If, as it turns out, there is nothing you can do about all the ice being melted, what will your worry accomplish other than shortening your life?
3. Well, they keep discovering trees in the Arctic, uncovered as the ice melts, and they are constantly discovering mammoth bones in "Beringia," the site of the pleasant green Land Bridge to Siberia. If the ice melts, it melts. We'll just have to adapt.
4. Oh, great, you trust NOAA? Did you notice there are no scales on these charts? No trendlines? It's not data, it's propaganda. What little they do say is that temperatures have increased about 1.4 degrees per century. I point out that is LESS than the lower limit desired in the Paris Climate Accords. It's a non-problem on which we are spending vast amounts of emotional and economic effort.
Well you feel free to continue to ignore that the rate of change is increasing along with population and energy usage... And ignore the issues that arise with "adapt" and mass migrations.
So you you seem to be on the verge of accepting that humans are causing the change, yet you still question the severity and time frame. With this in mind and your answer...
"God/Mother Nature" will manage it...
How exactly do you think a deity is going to adjust for this change in their well balanced environment / world?
What will happen so our world / environment will reach equilibrium again? Instead of heating at an accelerating rate?
Nature invented myopia but that isn't a reason not to wear glasses.
--Hiram
Unless you think God will alleviate the situation.
"the rate of change is increasing" That is your unfounded belief. Have you heard of the "pause," now something like 8 years running? And that sea level rise is NOT increasing beyond the historical rate over the last century?
I accept that humans are affecting the global environment in a number of ways, but the effect of human CO2 is tiny, far less than the natural CO2 seasonal cycle, and not even total CO2 is the principle determinant of global climate.
How will Nature adjust to more CO2? Have you not heard of the "greening Earth" or seen the photos? It's not exactly a supernatural phenomenon, but rather the way Nature has always been.
The Earth is /always/ in "equilibrium," and this notion of yours that there is some ideal state of it is just foolish imagination.
God gave us the wisdom to understand and adapt to the world He gave us. Too bad some of us have monumentally failed to use that wisdom and discernment.
It's like practicing medicine based on a comprehensive knowledge of the contents of WebMD.
--Hiram
Please provide a source regarding this "Pause"?
And obviously the plants can not keep up with us or the amount of CO2 would not be climbing...
Sure looks like the rate is increasing to me...
I think you can find the pause at Dr. Roy Spencer, but others have reported it. In fact, any good dataset (not NOAA) will tell you the same thing. This "hottest year on record" stuff is often measured in the hundredths of a degree. Sure, the world is getting warmer as we exit the Little Ice Age. What are you going to do about it?
Actually, the science says plants will absorb about half of any CO2 increase, regardless of value. That is why we run some greenhouses at 1000ppm or so. Also why india had a record harvest. The mad rush to "do something" is obviously leading us to do the WRONG thing, when we should be doing almost nothing (except looking for cheaper reliable energy sources). I've named a few.
Believe as you will...
Until then...
I will believe exactly what you believe, how is that? I will believe what that article shows me, which is that over the entire record, temperatures increased about 1 degree per century, but since about 1960, It's about 1.5 degrees per century. Paris achieved! Now if you want to claim that our Herculean efforts to curb CO2 have brought this about, fine, we can stop now.
That was with a VERY LARGE Ice pack melting and absorbing the excess heat energy. Unfortunately that is being reduced. It is likely the future will be different...
As the heat energy decrease and the ice decreases.
"There are lessons here for the media, for the public, and for scientists.
For scientists, there are two lessons: first, when you get to know a dataset by using it repeatedly in your work, make sure you also still remember the limitations you read about when first downloading it. Second, remember that your statistical choices are always part of a cascade of decisions, and at least occasionally those decisions must be revisited.
For the public and the media, the lesson is to check claims about the data. In particular, when claims are made based on short periods or specific datasets, they are often designed to mislead. If someone claims the world hasn’t warmed since 1998 or 2016, ask them why those specific years – why not 1997 or 2014? Why have such short limits at all? And also check how reliable similar claims have been in the past.
The technique of misinformation is nicely described in a quote attributed to climate researcher Michael Tobis:
“If a large data set speaks convincingly against you, find a smaller and noisier one that you can huffily cite.”
Global warming didn’t stop in 1998. Don’t be fooled by claims that it stopped in 2016 either. "
Uh-mazing. You do not even believe your own data! "As the heat energy decrease [sic] and the ice decreases" may be true, but you have ZERO evidence this is the result of fossil fuels. The Mendenhall glacier, for example, has been receding for 400 years. Glacier Bay since the great earthquake of about 1900.
"when claims are made based on short periods or specific datasets, they are often designed to mislead." So, when we look at a dataset that starts in 1880, are we misleading? The answer is plain, less than 1 degree per century. And when we take your notion that global warming accelerated after 1960, we still find about 1.5 degrees per century, no crisis there, either. And remember, climate is defined as a 30-year average, so 80 years is not, and cannot be, "misleading." You simply refuse to see reality.
As I said... Believe as you will...
I am pretty sure that pre-1880 temperature measurements are a bit scarce and suspect...
I mean deniers question the veracity and accuracy of the current hi tech measurements and satellite images...
Then they say... This happened back so and so...
I think we discussed the problem with averaging over too long of a time frame back here.
Maybe in 20 years we will have an answer... We can discuss it further then if you are still with us.
And now you are trashing your own argument? Pick a side!
pre-1880 measurents are the gospel, showing how much temperatures have increased since then. Why, even the models predict the same, they must be right. Yet when a simple examination of that chart shows a temperature rise considerably smaller than we are told we not only must worry about, but "do something" about, suddenly your data is unreliable?
And the fact that we have excellent model agreement with the data before we had models, tells me the models are suspect, but the fact the models agree with the chart's "hi tech measurements," but disagree with the satellites, is also wrong. And still, the fact this corrupt surface temperature data shows a seriously "non-catastrophic" warming, proves you are worrying about something that you should not and cannot possibly do anything about.
As for "averaging over too long a time frame," understand that the definition of "climate" is a 30-year average. Odd, because it is obvious that Earth's climate has a 30-year cycle, so a more realistic average, or average trend, would necessarily be longer than that, like the full 140-year record in the chart, or the 60-year record since 1960 suggested by your "accelerating" viewpoint. Either way, the total temperature trend from the chart is, at most 1.6 degrees C, barely above the LOWER limit of the Paris Climate Accords, and achieved WITHOUT any of its crazy attempts to control CO2.
Glad to see you finally agreeing, however, that the scientific HYPOTHESIS called "Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming" is still being tested, and we will not know the results of that experiment until the year 2100. Intermediate results, however, after 60 years (since 1960), and likely 20 years from now, should tell us that the hypothesis will be disproved. That is, real temperatures will be (and are) lower than what the models, based on the hypothesis, predict.
The problem with your approach is that you are not suggesting any real solutions, which is proper considering the "experiment" is not complete and looks to be failing, and yet governments and the media have us panicking and making some really stupid economic choices to try to stop something we don't even know is real, or that we can do anything about.
Back to the original topic. Where should you be investing today, fossil fuels, utilities, or windmills and solar companies?
I mostly invest in ETFs and mutual funds, so I think I own some of both.
Since one thing is for sure us, more energy will be needed.
And yet the government edicts are that there must be LESS energy produced. Germany for example is shutting down their nuclear plants, as is CA. I think the smart play might be to buy inflation-protected bonds, commodities, and maybe real estate, all hedges on the inflation you know is coming.
Changing source does not equal less produced.
VNQ has done well for me over the past 6 mths
Except in this case, changing source DOES equal less [electricity] produced. Wind and solar do not, and never will, produce at anything near "nameplate capacity." 50% at its extreme best, and less than that in MN. Yet government mandates these things be built, grants utilities higher rates to pay for them, and then we build gas-fired plants in ADDITION to cover the 60-80% of the time these are inadequate, when we could just skip the bird-choppers and burn natgas all the time. Or something even better, like thorium.
VNQ looks good on paper. I have some FRESX doing about as well, but I am leery of real estate after the last "bubble."
Wind is wonderful in MN...
Well look at the graph VNQ / REIT is still far behind the pack.
Though it is a bit hard to compare due to dividends paid.
Wonderful. Like when they stopped spinning and the natgas backups kept natgas from home heating, so many people nearly froze to death? How many birds have died? How much have your electric rates gone up? What are we going to do with all those UN-recyclable blades? How much lifecycle CO2 has been reduced and what has been the effect on global temperatures?
Here's what I found. The two funds are almost identical in performance, and do quite well. Less than bull market equities, of course, but backed by a real resource. The following are average annual returns over the period. Anything over 7% is considered very good.
Vanguard Real Estate Index Fund ETF Shares (VNQ)
Fidelity® Real Estate Investment Portfolio (FRESX)
1 Yr 3 Yr 5 Yr 10 Yr
+40.38% +19.91% +11.22% +11.50%
+42.35% +17.95% +10.45% +11.33%
It's almost funny, isn't it? We put up all these windmills to lower CO2 and "stop global warming" and they work so well they freeze up?
I'm late to the party and haven't read all the posts.
Has anyone mentioned how much of a drag on the economy two years of missed student loan payments is causing?
If it's been mentioned, it's a lie. No one has noticed the missing payments, and the stock market is doing great and jobs are being created.
Time to forgive student loan debt.
Moose
Interesting, Moose. Perhaps no one has noticed because those payments should have gone to the lender, the US Gov't? We didn't notice all the taxes not paid by people not working, either, though we should have. And the stock market is down 5% on the week.
Now, if we could just forgive the National Debt....
Unlike the personal student loan, we didn't all agree to take it on.
You're right. I didn't agree to the trillions wasted on a 20-year war. I didn't agree to trillions wasted on people who don't need it.
It could be argued, although I have not seen any sort of data about it, that the extra money in people's pockets due to the suspension of student loan payments has helped bolster the economy.
Of course, we know it to be true that when the middle class has money to spend the economy does better.
Moose
Post a Comment