| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Captain Compassion" |
| Date: |
21 May 2007 10:02:10 AM |
| Object: |
DISCOUNTING LOGIC |
DISCOUNTING LOGIC
National Post, 18 May 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=7bd269b6-b2e7-44d2-85e0-e7749714ba34
Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
If you're the type of person who sets aside money today for the
university education of your great-great-great grandchildren, even if
it means that you may not be able to afford university tuition for
your own children, you may think it sensible for society to invest now
in major measures to stop global warming.
If you're not this type -- and who in his right mind is -- you should
forget about Kyoto-like greenhouse-gas reduction targets and the crash
programs that would be required to meet them. Doing so would not only
be economically prudent, it would be -- by almost any measure -- the
ethical thing to do.
So argues celebrated economist William Nordhaus, author of
pathbreaking books and studies on global warming, and generally
considered the most authoritative economist in the climate change
field. His verdict on global warming alarmism, as exemplified by the
UK's Stern review, which demanded drastic measures now to avert
climate change calamity later: "Completely absurd."
The Stern review, released last year to banner headlines, argues that
the cost of inaction greatly exceeds the cost of action. It has been
much criticized for its selective use of data -- Sir Nicholas Stern
piles one worst-case scenario upon another to arrive at his
fantastical costs, and Dr. Nordhaus is among those who note this
failing. In fact, Sir Nicholas uses Nordhaus as a source for
global-warming costs that could present themselves well after the year
2100, although Nordhaus characterized that data as particularly
unreliable.
But a series of unreliable, worst-case scenarios centuries off, by
themselves, still would not warrant the extreme greenhouse gas
prevention investments that the Stern review recommends. To make an
economic case for immediate action, Sir Nicholas adjusted his model to
have us paying now for potential damage that could be happening
hundreds of years from now.
Sir Nicholas estimates the potential costs of climate change to be so
great as to force on us a "20% cut in per-capita consumption, now and
forever."
Yet his data showed low damages from climate change in the next two
centuries. To overcome his data, he applied to his model what
economists call a "near-zero social discount rate." Doing so brings
forward future expenses -- in the Stern review's case, expenses that
might occur in the 23rd and 24th centuries. The Stern review then
presents us with a tab that includes these far-out costs, and the
invoice is eye-popping indeed.
But the Stern review approach defies logic, as Dr. Nordhaus
illustrates by demonstrating just where zero social-discount-rate
thinking leads. "Suppose that scientists discover that a wrinkle in
the climatic system will cause damages equal to 0.01% of output
starting in 2200 and continuing at that rate thereafter," he explains.
"How large a onetime investment would be justified today to remove the
wrinkle starting after two centuries? The answer is that a payment of
15% of world consumption today (approximately US$7-trillion) would
pass the review's costbenefit test. This seems completely absurd. The
bizarre result arises because the value of the future consumption
stream is so high with near-zero discounting that we would trade off a
large fraction of today's income to increase a far-future income
stream by a very tiny fraction."
Moreover, who should be asked to forgo that consumption? It hardly
seems fair to keep back poor countries, yet, if paid by the rich
countries alone, the decline would far exceed that of the Great
Depression.
Some climate-change alarmists argue that we should invest in combating
climate change now as an insurance policy against the risk of future
damage. Sounds prudent, until you consider the premium to be paid.
"Suppose that we suddenly learn that there is a 10% probability of the
wrinkle in the climatic system that reduces the post- 2200 income
stream by 0.01%," Dr. Nordhaus explains, again to illustrate the Stern
review's logic.
"What insurance premium would be justified today to reduce that
probability to zero? With conventional discount rates, we would
probably ignore any tiny wrinkle two or three centuries ahead. If we
did a careful calculation using conventional discount rates, we would
calculate a break-even 0.0002% insurance premium to remove the year
2200 contingency, and a 0.0000003% premium for the year-2400
contingency. Moreover, these dollar premiums are small whether the
probability is large or small.
"With the review's near-zero discount rate, offsetting the
low-probability wrinkle would be worth an insurance premium today of
almost 2% of current income, or $1-trillion. We would pay almost the
same amount if that threshold were to be crossed in 2400 rather than
in 2200."
Dr. Nordhaus's conclusion about such scares: "We are in effect forced
to make current decisions about highly uncertain events in the distant
future, even though these estimates are highly speculative and are
almost sure to be refined over the coming decades."
Dr. Nordhaus discounts climate-change alarmism, but not climate change
itself. He advocates research to better understand its consequences
and to develop more efficient technologies. He advocates the
elimination of subsidies that artificially increase greenhouse- gas
emissions, and other "no-regrets" measures that would benefit the
environment without harming the economy. The costs of climate change
are real, he believes, and society should act. But not overreact.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC |
22 May 2007 06:40:10 AM |
|
|
"Captain Compassion" <daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:eqc353phbhlhmuolqhsqmtnot1eipls2jl@4ax.com...
DISCOUNTING LOGIC
National Post, 18 May 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=7bd269b6-b2e7-44d2-85e0-e7749714ba34
Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
If you're the type of person who sets aside money today for the
university education of your great-great-great grandchildren, even if
it means that you may not be able to afford university tuition for
your own children, you may think it sensible for society to invest now
in major measures to stop global warming.
If you're not this type -- and who in his right mind is -- you should
forget about Kyoto-like greenhouse-gas reduction targets and the crash
programs that would be required to meet them. Doing so would not only
be economically prudent, it would be -- by almost any measure -- the
ethical thing to do.
So argues celebrated economist William Nordhaus, author of
pathbreaking books and studies on global warming, and generally
considered the most authoritative economist in the climate change
field. His verdict on global warming alarmism, as exemplified by the
UK's Stern review, which demanded drastic measures now to avert
climate change calamity later: "Completely absurd."
As we all know, economists are the real experts on climate.
The Stern review, released last year to banner headlines, argues that
the cost of inaction greatly exceeds the cost of action. It has been
much criticized for its selective use of data -- Sir Nicholas Stern
piles one worst-case scenario upon another to arrive at his
fantastical costs, and Dr. Nordhaus is among those who note this
failing. In fact, Sir Nicholas uses Nordhaus as a source for
global-warming costs that could present themselves well after the year
2100, although Nordhaus characterized that data as particularly
unreliable.
But a series of unreliable, worst-case scenarios centuries off, by
themselves, still would not warrant the extreme greenhouse gas
prevention investments that the Stern review recommends. To make an
economic case for immediate action, Sir Nicholas adjusted his model to
have us paying now for potential damage that could be happening
hundreds of years from now.
Sir Nicholas estimates the potential costs of climate change to be so
great as to force on us a "20% cut in per-capita consumption, now and
forever."
Yet his data showed low damages from climate change in the next two
centuries. To overcome his data, he applied to his model what
economists call a "near-zero social discount rate." Doing so brings
forward future expenses -- in the Stern review's case, expenses that
might occur in the 23rd and 24th centuries. The Stern review then
presents us with a tab that includes these far-out costs, and the
invoice is eye-popping indeed.
But the Stern review approach defies logic, as Dr. Nordhaus
illustrates by demonstrating just where zero social-discount-rate
thinking leads. "Suppose that scientists discover that a wrinkle in
the climatic system will cause damages equal to 0.01% of output
starting in 2200 and continuing at that rate thereafter," he explains.
"How large a onetime investment would be justified today to remove the
wrinkle starting after two centuries? The answer is that a payment of
15% of world consumption today (approximately US$7-trillion) would
pass the review's costbenefit test. This seems completely absurd. The
bizarre result arises because the value of the future consumption
stream is so high with near-zero discounting that we would trade off a
large fraction of today's income to increase a far-future income
stream by a very tiny fraction."
Moreover, who should be asked to forgo that consumption? It hardly
seems fair to keep back poor countries, yet, if paid by the rich
countries alone, the decline would far exceed that of the Great
Depression.
Some climate-change alarmists argue that we should invest in combating
climate change now as an insurance policy against the risk of future
damage. Sounds prudent, until you consider the premium to be paid.
"Suppose that we suddenly learn that there is a 10% probability of the
wrinkle in the climatic system that reduces the post- 2200 income
stream by 0.01%," Dr. Nordhaus explains, again to illustrate the Stern
review's logic.
"What insurance premium would be justified today to reduce that
probability to zero? With conventional discount rates, we would
probably ignore any tiny wrinkle two or three centuries ahead. If we
did a careful calculation using conventional discount rates, we would
calculate a break-even 0.0002% insurance premium to remove the year
2200 contingency, and a 0.0000003% premium for the year-2400
contingency. Moreover, these dollar premiums are small whether the
probability is large or small.
"With the review's near-zero discount rate, offsetting the
low-probability wrinkle would be worth an insurance premium today of
almost 2% of current income, or $1-trillion. We would pay almost the
same amount if that threshold were to be crossed in 2400 rather than
in 2200."
Dr. Nordhaus's conclusion about such scares: "We are in effect forced
to make current decisions about highly uncertain events in the distant
future, even though these estimates are highly speculative and are
almost sure to be refined over the coming decades."
Dr. Nordhaus discounts climate-change alarmism, but not climate change
itself. He advocates research to better understand its consequences
and to develop more efficient technologies. He advocates the
elimination of subsidies that artificially increase greenhouse- gas
emissions, and other "no-regrets" measures that would benefit the
environment without harming the economy. The costs of climate change
are real, he believes, and society should act. But not overreact.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC |
22 May 2007 11:14:02 AM |
|
|
On May 22, 6:40 am, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:eqc353phbhlhmuolqhsqmtnot1eipls2jl@4ax.com...
DISCOUNTING LOGIC
National Post, 18 May 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?i...
Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
If you're the type of person who sets aside money today for the
university education of your great-great-great grandchildren, even if
it means that you may not be able to afford university tuition for
your own children, you may think it sensible for society to invest now
in major measures to stop global warming.
If you're not this type -- and who in his right mind is -- you should
forget about Kyoto-like greenhouse-gas reduction targets and the crash
programs that would be required to meet them. Doing so would not only
be economically prudent, it would be -- by almost any measure -- the
ethical thing to do.
So argues celebrated economist William Nordhaus, author of
pathbreaking books and studies on global warming, and generally
considered the most authoritative economist in the climate change
field. His verdict on global warming alarmism, as exemplified by the
UK's Stern review, which demanded drastic measures now to avert
climate change calamity later: "Completely absurd."
As we all know, economists are the real experts on climate.
The Stern review, released last year to banner headlines, argues that
the cost of inaction greatly exceeds the cost of action. It has been
much criticized for its selective use of data -- Sir Nicholas Stern
piles one worst-case scenario upon another to arrive at his
fantastical costs, and Dr. Nordhaus is among those who note this
failing. In fact, Sir Nicholas uses Nordhaus as a source for
global-warming costs that could present themselves well after the year
2100, although Nordhaus characterized that data as particularly
unreliable.
But a series of unreliable, worst-case scenarios centuries off, by
themselves, still would not warrant the extreme greenhouse gas
prevention investments that the Stern review recommends. To make an
economic case for immediate action, Sir Nicholas adjusted his model to
have us paying now for potential damage that could be happening
hundreds of years from now.
Sir Nicholas estimates the potential costs of climate change to be so
great as to force on us a "20% cut in per-capita consumption, now and
forever."
Yet his data showed low damages from climate change in the next two
centuries. To overcome his data, he applied to his model what
economists call a "near-zero social discount rate." Doing so brings
forward future expenses -- in the Stern review's case, expenses that
might occur in the 23rd and 24th centuries. The Stern review then
presents us with a tab that includes these far-out costs, and the
invoice is eye-popping indeed.
But the Stern review approach defies logic, as Dr. Nordhaus
illustrates by demonstrating just where zero social-discount-rate
thinking leads. "Suppose that scientists discover that a wrinkle in
the climatic system will cause damages equal to 0.01% of output
starting in 2200 and continuing at that rate thereafter," he explains.
"How large a onetime investment would be justified today to remove the
wrinkle starting after two centuries? The answer is that a payment of
15% of world consumption today (approximately US$7-trillion) would
pass the review's costbenefit test. This seems completely absurd. The
bizarre result arises because the value of the future consumption
stream is so high with near-zero discounting that we would trade off a
large fraction of today's income to increase a far-future income
stream by a very tiny fraction."
Moreover, who should be asked to forgo that consumption? It hardly
seems fair to keep back poor countries, yet, if paid by the rich
countries alone, the decline would far exceed that of the Great
Depression.
Some climate-change alarmists argue that we should invest in combating
climate change now as an insurance policy against the risk of future
damage. Sounds prudent, until you consider the premium to be paid.
"Suppose that we suddenly learn that there is a 10% probability of the
wrinkle in the climatic system that reduces the post- 2200 income
stream by 0.01%," Dr. Nordhaus explains, again to illustrate the Stern
review's logic.
"What insurance premium would be justified today to reduce that
probability to zero? With conventional discount rates, we would
probably ignore any tiny wrinkle two or three centuries ahead. If we
did a careful calculation using conventional discount rates, we would
calculate a break-even 0.0002% insurance premium to remove the year
2200 contingency, and a 0.0000003% premium for the year-2400
contingency. Moreover, these dollar premiums are small whether the
probability is large or small.
"With the review's near-zero discount rate, offsetting the
low-probability wrinkle would be worth an insurance premium today of
almost 2% of current income, or $1-trillion. We would pay almost the
same amount if that threshold were to be crossed in 2400 rather than
in 2200."
Dr. Nordhaus's conclusion about such scares: "We are in effect forced
to make current decisions about highly uncertain events in the distant
future, even though these estimates are highly speculative and are
almost sure to be refined over the coming decades."
Dr. Nordhaus discounts climate-change alarmism, but not climate change
itself. He advocates research to better understand its consequences
and to develop more efficient technologies. He advocates the
elimination of subsidies that artificially increase greenhouse- gas
emissions, and other "no-regrets" measures that would benefit the
environment without harming the economy. The costs of climate change
are real, he believes, and society should act. But not overreact.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic and do
basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming. None.
Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding for their
laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC |
22 May 2007 06:34:53 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179850442.040023.82990@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 6:40 am, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:eqc353phbhlhmuolqhsqmtnot1eipls2jl@4ax.com...
DISCOUNTING LOGIC
National Post, 18 May 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?i...
Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
If you're the type of person who sets aside money today for the
university education of your great-great-great grandchildren, even if
it means that you may not be able to afford university tuition for
your own children, you may think it sensible for society to invest now
in major measures to stop global warming.
If you're not this type -- and who in his right mind is -- you should
forget about Kyoto-like greenhouse-gas reduction targets and the crash
programs that would be required to meet them. Doing so would not only
be economically prudent, it would be -- by almost any measure -- the
ethical thing to do.
So argues celebrated economist William Nordhaus, author of
pathbreaking books and studies on global warming, and generally
considered the most authoritative economist in the climate change
field. His verdict on global warming alarmism, as exemplified by the
UK's Stern review, which demanded drastic measures now to avert
climate change calamity later: "Completely absurd."
As we all know, economists are the real experts on climate.
The Stern review, released last year to banner headlines, argues that
the cost of inaction greatly exceeds the cost of action. It has been
much criticized for its selective use of data -- Sir Nicholas Stern
piles one worst-case scenario upon another to arrive at his
fantastical costs, and Dr. Nordhaus is among those who note this
failing. In fact, Sir Nicholas uses Nordhaus as a source for
global-warming costs that could present themselves well after the year
2100, although Nordhaus characterized that data as particularly
unreliable.
But a series of unreliable, worst-case scenarios centuries off, by
themselves, still would not warrant the extreme greenhouse gas
prevention investments that the Stern review recommends. To make an
economic case for immediate action, Sir Nicholas adjusted his model to
have us paying now for potential damage that could be happening
hundreds of years from now.
Sir Nicholas estimates the potential costs of climate change to be so
great as to force on us a "20% cut in per-capita consumption, now and
forever."
Yet his data showed low damages from climate change in the next two
centuries. To overcome his data, he applied to his model what
economists call a "near-zero social discount rate." Doing so brings
forward future expenses -- in the Stern review's case, expenses that
might occur in the 23rd and 24th centuries. The Stern review then
presents us with a tab that includes these far-out costs, and the
invoice is eye-popping indeed.
But the Stern review approach defies logic, as Dr. Nordhaus
illustrates by demonstrating just where zero social-discount-rate
thinking leads. "Suppose that scientists discover that a wrinkle in
the climatic system will cause damages equal to 0.01% of output
starting in 2200 and continuing at that rate thereafter," he explains.
"How large a onetime investment would be justified today to remove the
wrinkle starting after two centuries? The answer is that a payment of
15% of world consumption today (approximately US$7-trillion) would
pass the review's costbenefit test. This seems completely absurd. The
bizarre result arises because the value of the future consumption
stream is so high with near-zero discounting that we would trade off a
large fraction of today's income to increase a far-future income
stream by a very tiny fraction."
Moreover, who should be asked to forgo that consumption? It hardly
seems fair to keep back poor countries, yet, if paid by the rich
countries alone, the decline would far exceed that of the Great
Depression.
Some climate-change alarmists argue that we should invest in combating
climate change now as an insurance policy against the risk of future
damage. Sounds prudent, until you consider the premium to be paid.
"Suppose that we suddenly learn that there is a 10% probability of the
wrinkle in the climatic system that reduces the post- 2200 income
stream by 0.01%," Dr. Nordhaus explains, again to illustrate the Stern
review's logic.
"What insurance premium would be justified today to reduce that
probability to zero? With conventional discount rates, we would
probably ignore any tiny wrinkle two or three centuries ahead. If we
did a careful calculation using conventional discount rates, we would
calculate a break-even 0.0002% insurance premium to remove the year
2200 contingency, and a 0.0000003% premium for the year-2400
contingency. Moreover, these dollar premiums are small whether the
probability is large or small.
"With the review's near-zero discount rate, offsetting the
low-probability wrinkle would be worth an insurance premium today of
almost 2% of current income, or $1-trillion. We would pay almost the
same amount if that threshold were to be crossed in 2400 rather than
in 2200."
Dr. Nordhaus's conclusion about such scares: "We are in effect forced
to make current decisions about highly uncertain events in the distant
future, even though these estimates are highly speculative and are
almost sure to be refined over the coming decades."
Dr. Nordhaus discounts climate-change alarmism, but not climate change
itself. He advocates research to better understand its consequences
and to develop more efficient technologies. He advocates the
elimination of subsidies that artificially increase greenhouse- gas
emissions, and other "no-regrets" measures that would benefit the
environment without harming the economy. The costs of climate change
are real, he believes, and society should act. But not overreact.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here,
not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they
alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic and do
basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming. None.
Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding for their
laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field.
You are right and THOUSANDS OF trained, educated, and full time scientists
in the field are wrong.
Wow.
Where's your cure for cancer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC |
23 May 2007 09:07:33 AM |
|
|
On May 22, 6:34 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179850442.040023.82990@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 6:40 am, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:eqc353phbhlhmuolqhsqmtnot1eipls2jl@4ax.com...
DISCOUNTING LOGIC
National Post, 18 May 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?i...
Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
If you're the type of person who sets aside money today for the
university education of your great-great-great grandchildren, even if
it means that you may not be able to afford university tuition for
your own children, you may think it sensible for society to invest now
in major measures to stop global warming.
If you're not this type -- and who in his right mind is -- you should
forget about Kyoto-like greenhouse-gas reduction targets and the crash
programs that would be required to meet them. Doing so would not only
be economically prudent, it would be -- by almost any measure -- the
ethical thing to do.
So argues celebrated economist William Nordhaus, author of
pathbreaking books and studies on global warming, and generally
considered the most authoritative economist in the climate change
field. His verdict on global warming alarmism, as exemplified by the
UK's Stern review, which demanded drastic measures now to avert
climate change calamity later: "Completely absurd."
As we all know, economists are the real experts on climate.
The Stern review, released last year to banner headlines, argues that
the cost of inaction greatly exceeds the cost of action. It has been
much criticized for its selective use of data -- Sir Nicholas Stern
piles one worst-case scenario upon another to arrive at his
fantastical costs, and Dr. Nordhaus is among those who note this
failing. In fact, Sir Nicholas uses Nordhaus as a source for
global-warming costs that could present themselves well after the year
2100, although Nordhaus characterized that data as particularly
unreliable.
But a series of unreliable, worst-case scenarios centuries off, by
themselves, still would not warrant the extreme greenhouse gas
prevention investments that the Stern review recommends. To make an
economic case for immediate action, Sir Nicholas adjusted his model to
have us paying now for potential damage that could be happening
hundreds of years from now.
Sir Nicholas estimates the potential costs of climate change to be so
great as to force on us a "20% cut in per-capita consumption, now and
forever."
Yet his data showed low damages from climate change in the next two
centuries. To overcome his data, he applied to his model what
economists call a "near-zero social discount rate." Doing so brings
forward future expenses -- in the Stern review's case, expenses that
might occur in the 23rd and 24th centuries. The Stern review then
presents us with a tab that includes these far-out costs, and the
invoice is eye-popping indeed.
But the Stern review approach defies logic, as Dr. Nordhaus
illustrates by demonstrating just where zero social-discount-rate
thinking leads. "Suppose that scientists discover that a wrinkle in
the climatic system will cause damages equal to 0.01% of output
starting in 2200 and continuing at that rate thereafter," he explains.
"How large a onetime investment would be justified today to remove the
wrinkle starting after two centuries? The answer is that a payment of
15% of world consumption today (approximately US$7-trillion) would
pass the review's costbenefit test. This seems completely absurd. The
bizarre result arises because the value of the future consumption
stream is so high with near-zero discounting that we would trade off a
large fraction of today's income to increase a far-future income
stream by a very tiny fraction."
Moreover, who should be asked to forgo that consumption? It hardly
seems fair to keep back poor countries, yet, if paid by the rich
countries alone, the decline would far exceed that of the Great
Depression.
Some climate-change alarmists argue that we should invest in combating
climate change now as an insurance policy against the risk of future
damage. Sounds prudent, until you consider the premium to be paid.
"Suppose that we suddenly learn that there is a 10% probability of the
wrinkle in the climatic system that reduces the post- 2200 income
stream by 0.01%," Dr. Nordhaus explains, again to illustrate the Stern
review's logic.
"What insurance premium would be justified today to reduce that
probability to zero? With conventional discount rates, we would
probably ignore any tiny wrinkle two or three centuries ahead. If we
did a careful calculation using conventional discount rates, we would
calculate a break-even 0.0002% insurance premium to remove the year
2200 contingency, and a 0.0000003% premium for the year-2400
contingency. Moreover, these dollar premiums are small whether the
probability is large or small.
"With the review's near-zero discount rate, offsetting the
low-probability wrinkle would be worth an insurance premium today of
almost 2% of current income, or $1-trillion. We would pay almost the
same amount if that threshold were to be crossed in 2400 rather than
in 2200."
Dr. Nordhaus's conclusion about such scares: "We are in effect forced
to make current decisions about highly uncertain events in the distant
future, even though these estimates are highly speculative and are
almost sure to be refined over the coming decades."
Dr. Nordhaus discounts climate-change alarmism, but not climate change
itself. He advocates research to better understand its consequences
and to develop more efficient technologies. He advocates the
elimination of subsidies that artificially increase greenhouse- gas
emissions, and other "no-regrets" measures that would benefit the
environment without harming the economy. The costs of climate change
are real, he believes, and society should act. But not overreact.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here,
not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they
alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic and do
basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming. None.
Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding for their
laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field.
You are right and THOUSANDS OF trained, educated, and full time scientists
in the field are wrong.
Wow.
Where's your cure for cancer?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a cure
for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well. There's more
money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science is totally corrupt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC |
24 May 2007 01:33:33 AM |
|
|
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179929253.848405.76490@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 6:34 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1179850442.040023.82990@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 6:40 am, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Captain Compassion" <dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote in message
news:eqc353phbhlhmuolqhsqmtnot1eipls2jl@4ax.com...
DISCOUNTING LOGIC
National Post, 18 May 2007
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?i...
Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
If you're the type of person who sets aside money today for the
university education of your great-great-great grandchildren, even
if
it means that you may not be able to afford university tuition for
your own children, you may think it sensible for society to invest
now
in major measures to stop global warming.
If you're not this type -- and who in his right mind is -- you
should
forget about Kyoto-like greenhouse-gas reduction targets and the
crash
programs that would be required to meet them. Doing so would not
only
be economically prudent, it would be -- by almost any measure -- the
ethical thing to do.
So argues celebrated economist William Nordhaus, author of
pathbreaking books and studies on global warming, and generally
considered the most authoritative economist in the climate change
field. His verdict on global warming alarmism, as exemplified by the
UK's Stern review, which demanded drastic measures now to avert
climate change calamity later: "Completely absurd."
As we all know, economists are the real experts on climate.
The Stern review, released last year to banner headlines, argues
that
the cost of inaction greatly exceeds the cost of action. It has been
much criticized for its selective use of data -- Sir Nicholas Stern
piles one worst-case scenario upon another to arrive at his
fantastical costs, and Dr. Nordhaus is among those who note this
failing. In fact, Sir Nicholas uses Nordhaus as a source for
global-warming costs that could present themselves well after the
year
2100, although Nordhaus characterized that data as particularly
unreliable.
But a series of unreliable, worst-case scenarios centuries off, by
themselves, still would not warrant the extreme greenhouse gas
prevention investments that the Stern review recommends. To make an
economic case for immediate action, Sir Nicholas adjusted his model
to
have us paying now for potential damage that could be happening
hundreds of years from now.
Sir Nicholas estimates the potential costs of climate change to be
so
great as to force on us a "20% cut in per-capita consumption, now
and
forever."
Yet his data showed low damages from climate change in the next two
centuries. To overcome his data, he applied to his model what
economists call a "near-zero social discount rate." Doing so brings
forward future expenses -- in the Stern review's case, expenses that
might occur in the 23rd and 24th centuries. The Stern review then
presents us with a tab that includes these far-out costs, and the
invoice is eye-popping indeed.
But the Stern review approach defies logic, as Dr. Nordhaus
illustrates by demonstrating just where zero social-discount-rate
thinking leads. "Suppose that scientists discover that a wrinkle in
the climatic system will cause damages equal to 0.01% of output
starting in 2200 and continuing at that rate thereafter," he
explains.
"How large a onetime investment would be justified today to remove
the
wrinkle starting after two centuries? The answer is that a payment
of
15% of world consumption today (approximately US$7-trillion) would
pass the review's costbenefit test. This seems completely absurd.
The
bizarre result arises because the value of the future consumption
stream is so high with near-zero discounting that we would trade off
a
large fraction of today's income to increase a far-future income
stream by a very tiny fraction."
Moreover, who should be asked to forgo that consumption? It hardly
seems fair to keep back poor countries, yet, if paid by the rich
countries alone, the decline would far exceed that of the Great
Depression.
Some climate-change alarmists argue that we should invest in
combating
climate change now as an insurance policy against the risk of future
damage. Sounds prudent, until you consider the premium to be paid.
"Suppose that we suddenly learn that there is a 10% probability of
the
wrinkle in the climatic system that reduces the post- 2200 income
stream by 0.01%," Dr. Nordhaus explains, again to illustrate the
Stern
review's logic.
"What insurance premium would be justified today to reduce that
probability to zero? With conventional discount rates, we would
probably ignore any tiny wrinkle two or three centuries ahead. If we
did a careful calculation using conventional discount rates, we
would
calculate a break-even 0.0002% insurance premium to remove the year
2200 contingency, and a 0.0000003% premium for the year-2400
contingency. Moreover, these dollar premiums are small whether the
probability is large or small.
"With the review's near-zero discount rate, offsetting the
low-probability wrinkle would be worth an insurance premium today of
almost 2% of current income, or $1-trillion. We would pay almost the
same amount if that threshold were to be crossed in 2400 rather than
in 2200."
Dr. Nordhaus's conclusion about such scares: "We are in effect
forced
to make current decisions about highly uncertain events in the
distant
future, even though these estimates are highly speculative and are
almost sure to be refined over the coming decades."
Dr. Nordhaus discounts climate-change alarmism, but not climate
change
itself. He advocates research to better understand its consequences
and to develop more efficient technologies. He advocates the
elimination of subsidies that artificially increase greenhouse- gas
emissions, and other "no-regrets" measures that would benefit the
environment without harming the economy. The costs of climate change
are real, he believes, and society should act. But not overreact.
--
There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth
telling
the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their
cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.
Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here,
not
on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry
away
with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they
alone
are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them
suffices
me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS
Celibacy in healthy human beings is a form of
insanity. -- Captain Compassion
"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@NOSPAMcharter.net- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic and do
basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming. None.
Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding for their
laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field.
You are right and THOUSANDS OF trained, educated, and full time
scientists
in the field are wrong.
Wow.
Where's your cure for cancer?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a cure
for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well. There's more
money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science is totally corrupt.
You're talking out of your *****.
You don't know *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, ON SALE FOR THE HOLIDAYS! |
25 May 2007 10:13:42 AM |
|
|
On May 24, 11:28 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kurt Lochner" <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4656467F.16B2F3@NOSPAMhotmail.com...
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic
and do basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming.
None. Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding
for their laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field."
"They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a
cure for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well.
There's more money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science
is totally corrupt."
"Roger, if I were even half as stupid as you are, I would
undoubtedly sound as stupid as you do. Or, for that matter,
as the professional scientific community. Or for that matter,
the Nobel Prize Committee in Sweden. Utter Charlatans, the
lot of them. And they know it."
You should take that "discount logic" of yours back to the
place you bought it from, it appears to be defective..
--How's things at ONENET these days?
It better be discount logic. It's for *****.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So are you , Roger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, ON SALE FOR THE HOLIDAYS! |
25 May 2007 04:09:09 PM |
|
|
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1999@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180106021.840775.224040@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 11:28 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kurt Lochner" <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4656467F.16B2F3@NOSPAMhotmail.com...
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic
and do basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming.
None. Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding
for their laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field."
"They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a
cure for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well.
There's more money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science
is totally corrupt."
"Roger, if I were even half as stupid as you are, I would
undoubtedly sound as stupid as you do. Or, for that matter,
as the professional scientific community. Or for that matter,
the Nobel Prize Committee in Sweden. Utter Charlatans, the
lot of them. And they know it."
You should take that "discount logic" of yours back to the
place you bought it from, it appears to be defective..
--How's things at ONENET these days?
It better be discount logic. It's for *****.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So are you , Roger.
Good one. For a 4 year old.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, ON SALE FOR THE HOLIDAYS! |
26 May 2007 11:16:50 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 4:09 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1180106021.840775.224040@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 11:28 pm, "Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Kurt Lochner" <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4656467F.16B2F3@NOSPAMhotmail.com...
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic
and do basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming.
None. Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding
for their laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field."
"They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a
cure for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well.
There's more money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science
is totally corrupt."
"Roger, if I were even half as stupid as you are, I would
undoubtedly sound as stupid as you do. Or, for that matter,
as the professional scientific community. Or for that matter,
the Nobel Prize Committee in Sweden. Utter Charlatans, the
lot of them. And they know it."
You should take that "discount logic" of yours back to the
place you bought it from, it appears to be defective..
--How's things at ONENET these days?
It better be discount logic. It's for *****.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So are you , Roger.
Good one. For a 4 year old.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Which appears to be roughly your mental age, Roger.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, ON SALE FOR THE HOLIDAYS! |
25 May 2007 11:46:05 AM |
|
|
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic
and do basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming.
None. Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding
for their laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field."
"They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a
cure for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well.
There's more money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science
is totally corrupt."
"Roger, if I were even half as stupid as you are, I would
undoubtedly sound as stupid as you do. Or, for that matter,
as the professional scientific community. Or for that matter,
the Nobel Prize Committee in Sweden. Utter Charlatans, the
lot of them. And they know it."
You should take that "discount logic" of yours back to the
place you bought it from, it appears to be defective..
--How's things at ONENET these days?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, SAVE A DOLLAR TODAY.. |
25 May 2007 10:13:18 AM |
|
|
On May 24, 6:49 pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner was again amused by the pathetic excuses uttered by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
____________>>
They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a cure
for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well. There's more
money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science is totally corrupt.
You're talking out of your *****.
You don't know *****.
Roger, if I were even half as stupid as you are, I would undoubtedly
sound as stupid as you do. Or, for that matter, as the professional
scientific community. Or for that matter, the Nobel Prize Committee
in Sweden. Utter Charlatans, the lot of them. And they know it.
You're talking out of your *****.
You don't know *****.
Roger, did someone forget to replace your battery?
Jerry, would you please stop pretending like you have any
qualifications, formal training or experience in science?
--Check with Ralph regarding mine, lad..
Kurt, will you please stop pretending that your IQ is above
the level of the average chimpanzee?
Jerry, will you quit wasting my time with your juvenile
attempts at an insult that is utterly without merit?
--Or should this be brought to someone else's attention?
Kurt, if you are so very highly qualified [..]
There's no "if" to it, Jerry..
Could you at least try to say something interesting,
just for a change?
I've already done that, Jerry, and you've replied with snot-nosed
pube-like remarks about how scientist are all lying, which I have
indicated that I take personal offense at..
You've been evading that ever since I last spanked you for it,
and next time I can make it really hurt, if that's what it will
take to get you off your obviously unqualified *****, and back to
doing the work you're paid to do. So, instead of making such
crude and unqualified remarks about your betters, why don't
you avail yourself of some much needed higher education..
--That is who you work for, in case you forgot..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Frankly, I'm a bit doubtful that you are a scientist Kurt, although
you do have the requisite arrogance, complacency and stupidity.
Scientists tend to contribute to scientific groups on Google, not
political ones.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, SAVE A DOLLAR TODAY.. |
25 May 2007 10:54:17 AM |
|
|
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner was again amused by the pathetic excuses uttered by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
________________>>
They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a cure
for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well. There's more
money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science is totally corrupt.
You're talking out of your *****.
You don't know *****.
Roger, if I were even half as stupid as you are, I would undoubtedly
sound as stupid as you do. Or, for that matter, as the professional
scientific community. Or for that matter, the Nobel Prize Committee
in Sweden. Utter Charlatans, the lot of them. And they know it.
You're talking out of your *****.
You don't know *****.
Roger, did someone forget to replace your battery?
Jerry, would you please stop pretending like you have any
qualifications, formal training or experience in science?
--Check with Ralph regarding mine, lad..
Kurt, will you please stop pretending that your IQ is above
the level of the average chimpanzee?
Jerry, will you quit wasting my time with your juvenile
attempts at an insult that is utterly without merit?
--Or should this be brought to someone else's attention?
Kurt, if you are so very highly qualified [..]
There's no "if" to it, Jerry..
Could you at least try to say something interesting,
just for a change?
I've already done that, Jerry, and you've replied with snot-nosed
pube-like remarks about how scientist are all lying, which I have
indicated that I take personal offense at..
You've been evading that ever since I last spanked you for it,
and next time I can make it really hurt, if that's what it will
take to get you off your obviously unqualified *****, and back to
doing the work you're paid to do. So, instead of making such
crude and unqualified remarks about your betters, why don't
you avail yourself of some much needed higher education..
--That is who you work for, in case you forgot..
Frankly, I'm a bit doubtful that you are a scientist Kurt[..]
Your uninformed opinion and expectations are not my problem.
Example follows..
Scientists tend to contribute to scientific groups[..]
Incorrect. Scientists "tend" to contribute to on-going
scientific investigations, building upon objective observations
and testing hypothesis' regarding such subjects as global warming.
That subject, itself, is of political as well as scientific interest,
and if you continue with your fallacy arguments about how *ALL*
scientists are *LYING* about this subject, I shall continue to
expose your shoddy miscomprehension and deliberate generalizations
for the contemptuous contemplations of a cretin that it is..
--Did you apply for a rebate on your "discounted logic"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, SAVE A DOLLAR TODAY.. |
25 May 2007 11:20:20 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 10:54 am, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner was again amused by the pathetic excuses uttered by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
"Roger" <roge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
________________>>
They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a cure
for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well. There's more
money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science is totally corrupt.
You're talking out of your *****.
You don't know *****.
Roger, if I were even half as stupid as you are, I would undoubtedly
sound as stupid as you do. Or, for that matter, as the professional
scientific community. Or for that matter, the Nobel Prize Committee
in Sweden. Utter Charlatans, the lot of them. And they know it.
You're talking out of your *****.
You don't know *****.
Roger, did someone forget to replace your battery?
Jerry, would you please stop pretending like you have any
qualifications, formal training or experience in science?
--Check with Ralph regarding mine, lad..
Kurt, will you please stop pretending that your IQ is above
the level of the average chimpanzee?
Jerry, will you quit wasting my time with your juvenile
attempts at an insult that is utterly without merit?
--Or should this be brought to someone else's attention?
Kurt, if you are so very highly qualified [..]
There's no "if" to it, Jerry..
Could you at least try to say something interesting,
just for a change?
I've already done that, Jerry, and you've replied with snot-nosed
pube-like remarks about how scientist are all lying, which I have
indicated that I take personal offense at..
You've been evading that ever since I last spanked you for it,
and next time I can make it really hurt, if that's what it will
take to get you off your obviously unqualified *****, and back to
doing the work you're paid to do. So, instead of making such
crude and unqualified remarks about your betters, why don't
you avail yourself of some much needed higher education..
--That is who you work for, in case you forgot..
Frankly, I'm a bit doubtful that you are a scientist Kurt[..]
Your uninformed opinion and expectations are not my problem.
Example follows..
Scientists tend to contribute to scientific groups[..]
Incorrect. Scientists "tend" to contribute to on-going
scientific investigations, building upon objective observations
and testing hypothesis' regarding such subjects as global warming.
That subject, itself, is of political as well as scientific interest,
and if you continue with your fallacy arguments about how *ALL*
scientists are *LYING* about this subject, I shall continue to
expose your shoddy miscomprehension and deliberate generalizations
for the contemptuous contemplations of a cretin that it is..
--Did you apply for a rebate on your "discounted logic"?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Kurt, have you considered studying spelling or grammar? In English,
for example? You obviously don't know anything about science or
physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, SAVE A DOLLAR TODAY.. |
25 May 2007 11:37:35 AM |
|
|
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
________>
Kurt, if you are so very highly qualified [..]
There's no "if" to it, Jerry..
Could you at least try to say something interesting,
just for a change?
I've already done that, Jerry, and you've replied with snot-nosed
pube-like remarks about how scientist are all lying, which I have
indicated that I take personal offense at..
You've been evading that ever since I last spanked you for it,
and next time I can make it really hurt, if that's what it will
take to get you off your obviously unqualified *****, and back to
doing the work you're paid to do. So, instead of making such
crude and unqualified remarks about your betters, why don't
you avail yourself of some much needed higher education..
--That is who you work for, in case you forgot..
Frankly, I'm a bit doubtful that you are a scientist Kurt[..]
Your uninformed opinion and expectations are not my problem.
Example follows..
Scientists tend to contribute to scientific groups[..]
Incorrect. Scientists "tend" to contribute to on-going
scientific investigations, building upon objective observations
and testing hypothesis' regarding such subjects as global warming.
That subject, itself, is of political as well as scientific interest,
and if you continue with your fallacy arguments about how *ALL*
scientists are *LYING* about this subject, I shall continue to
expose your shoddy miscomprehension and deliberate generalizations
for the contemptuous contemplations of a cretin that it is..
--Did you apply for a rebate on your "discounted logic"?
Kurt, have you considered studying spelling or grammar?
Jerry, have you considered studying logic and critical thinking?
You obviously don't know anything about science or physics.
I'll be sure to tell that to the Dean Emeritus and Chancellor..
--Certainly, they will be amused by that negative claim of yours..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, SAVE A DOLLAR TODAY.. |
25 May 2007 11:55:52 AM |
|
|
On May 25, 11:37 am, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
________>
Kurt, if you are so very highly qualified [..]
There's no "if" to it, Jerry..
Could you at least try to say something interesting,
just for a change?
I've already done that, Jerry, and you've replied with snot-nosed
pube-like remarks about how scientist are all lying, which I have
indicated that I take personal offense at..
You've been evading that ever since I last spanked you for it,
and next time I can make it really hurt, if that's what it will
take to get you off your obviously unqualified *****, and back to
doing the work you're paid to do. So, instead of making such
crude and unqualified remarks about your betters, why don't
you avail yourself of some much needed higher education..
--That is who you work for, in case you forgot..
Frankly, I'm a bit doubtful that you are a scientist Kurt[..]
Your uninformed opinion and expectations are not my problem.
Example follows..
Scientists tend to contribute to scientific groups[..]
Incorrect. Scientists "tend" to contribute to on-going
scientific investigations, building upon objective observations
and testing hypothesis' regarding such subjects as global warming.
That subject, itself, is of political as well as scientific interest,
and if you continue with your fallacy arguments about how *ALL*
scientists are *LYING* about this subject, I shall continue to
expose your shoddy miscomprehension and deliberate generalizations
for the contemptuous contemplations of a cretin that it is..
--Did you apply for a rebate on your "discounted logic"?
Kurt, have you considered studying spelling or grammar?
Jerry, have you considered studying logic and critical thinking?
You obviously don't know anything about science or physics.
I'll be sure to tell that to the Dean Emeritus and Chancellor..
--Certainly, they will be amused by that negative claim of yours..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Please, do put some of your physics publications online. I'd be
delighted to critique them. Really.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, SAVE A DOLLAR TODAY.. |
25 May 2007 12:19:46 PM |
|
|
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner continued poking holes in the pseudologia exhibited by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
____________>
Kurt, if you are so very highly qualified [..]
There's no "if" to it, Jerry..
Could you at least try to say something interesting,
just for a change?
I've already done that, Jerry, and you've replied with snot-nosed
pube-like remarks about how scientist are all lying, which I have
indicated that I take personal offense at..
You've been evading that ever since I last spanked you for it,
and next time I can make it really hurt, if that's what it will
take to get you off your obviously unqualified *****, and back to
doing the work you're paid to do. So, instead of making such
crude and unqualified remarks about your betters, why don't
you avail yourself of some much needed higher education..
--That is who you work for, in case you forgot..
Frankly, I'm a bit doubtful that you are a scientist Kurt[..]
Your uninformed opinion and expectations are not my problem.
Example follows..
Scientists tend to contribute to scientific groups[..]
Incorrect. Scientists "tend" to contribute to on-going
scientific investigations, building upon objective observations
and testing hypothesis' regarding such subjects as global warming.
That subject, itself, is of political as well as scientific interest,
and if you continue with your fallacy arguments about how *ALL*
scientists are *LYING* about this subject, I shall continue to
expose your shoddy miscomprehension and deliberate generalizations
for the contemptuous contemplations of a cretin that it is..
--Did you apply for a rebate on your "discounted logic"?
Kurt, have you considered studying spelling or grammar?
Jerry, have you considered studying logic and critical thinking?
You obviously don't know anything about science or physics.
I'll be sure to tell that to the Dean Emeritus and Chancellor..
--Certainly, they will be amused by that negative claim of yours..
Please, do put some of your [..]
Let's start with some of your own, first, Jerry..
"You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic
and do basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming.
None. Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding
for their laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field."
"They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a
cure for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well.
There's more money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science
is totally corrupt."
"Roger, if I were even half as stupid as you are, I would
undoubtedly sound as stupid as you do. Or, for that matter,
as the professional scientific community. Or for that matter,
the Nobel Prize Committee in Sweden. Utter Charlatans, the
lot of them. And they know it."
--How would you like your crow served?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, SAVE A DOLLAR TODAY.. |
25 May 2007 12:27:13 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 12:19 pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner continued poking holes in the pseudologia exhibited by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
____________>
Kurt, if you are so very highly qualified [..]
There's no "if" to it, Jerry..
Could you at least try to say something interesting,
just for a change?
I've already done that, Jerry, and you've replied with snot-nosed
pube-like remarks about how scientist are all lying, which I have
indicated that I take personal offense at..
You've been evading that ever since I last spanked you for it,
and next time I can make it really hurt, if that's what it will
take to get you off your obviously unqualified *****, and back to
doing the work you're paid to do. So, instead of making such
crude and unqualified remarks about your betters, why don't
you avail yourself of some much needed higher education..
--That is who you work for, in case you forgot..
Frankly, I'm a bit doubtful that you are a scientist Kurt[..]
Your uninformed opinion and expectations are not my problem.
Example follows..
Scientists tend to contribute to scientific groups[..]
Incorrect. Scientists "tend" to contribute to on-going
scientific investigations, building upon objective observations
and testing hypothesis' regarding such subjects as global warming.
That subject, itself, is of political as well as scientific interest,
and if you continue with your fallacy arguments about how *ALL*
scientists are *LYING* about this subject, I shall continue to
expose your shoddy miscomprehension and deliberate generalizations
for the contemptuous contemplations of a cretin that it is..
--Did you apply for a rebate on your "discounted logic"?
Kurt, have you considered studying spelling or grammar?
Jerry, have you considered studying logic and critical thinking?
You obviously don't know anything about science or physics.
I'll be sure to tell that to the Dean Emeritus and Chancellor..
--Certainly, they will be amused by that negative claim of yours..
Please, do put some of your [..]
Let's start with some of your own, first, Jerry..
"You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic
and do basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming.
None. Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding
for their laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field."
"They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a
cure for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well.
There's more money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science
is totally corrupt."
"Roger, if I were even half as stupid as you are, I would
undoubtedly sound as stupid as you do. Or, for that matter,
as the professional scientific community. Or for that matter,
the Nobel Prize Committee in Sweden. Utter Charlatans, the
lot of them. And they know it."
--How would you like your crow served?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You seem to be the one claiming to have one, Kurt. At least, for the
moment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Lochner" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, SAVE A DOLLAR TODAY.. |
25 May 2007 12:29:52 PM |
|
|
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner continued poking holes in the pseudologia exhibited by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner continued poking holes in the pseudologia exhibited by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
________________>
Kurt, if you are so very highly qualified [..]
There's no "if" to it, Jerry..
Could you at least try to say something interesting,
just for a change?
I've already done that, Jerry, and you've replied with snot-nosed
pube-like remarks about how scientist are all lying, which I have
indicated that I take personal offense at..
You've been evading that ever since I last spanked you for it,
and next time I can make it really hurt, if that's what it will
take to get you off your obviously unqualified *****, and back to
doing the work you're paid to do. So, instead of making such
crude and unqualified remarks about your betters, why don't
you avail yourself of some much needed higher education..
--That is who you work for, in case you forgot..
Frankly, I'm a bit doubtful that you are a scientist Kurt[..]
Your uninformed opinion and expectations are not my problem.
Example follows..
Scientists tend to contribute to scientific groups[..]
Incorrect. Scientists "tend" to contribute to on-going
scientific investigations, building upon objective observations
and testing hypothesis' regarding such subjects as global warming.
That subject, itself, is of political as well as scientific interest,
and if you continue with your fallacy arguments about how *ALL*
scientists are *LYING* about this subject, I shall continue to
expose your shoddy miscomprehension and deliberate generalizations
for the contemptuous contemplations of a cretin that it is..
--Did you apply for a rebate on your "discounted logic"?
Kurt, have you considered studying spelling or grammar?
Jerry, have you considered studying logic and critical thinking?
You obviously don't know anything about science or physics.
I'll be sure to tell that to the Dean Emeritus and Chancellor..
--Certainly, they will be amused by that negative claim of yours..
Please, do put some of your [..]
Let's start with some of your own, first, Jerry..
"You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic
and do basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming.
None. Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding
for their laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field."
"They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a
cure for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well.
There's more money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science
is totally corrupt."
"Roger, if I were even half as stupid as you are, I would
undoubtedly sound as stupid as you do. Or, for that matter,
as the professional scientific community. Or for that matter,
the Nobel Prize Committee in Sweden. Utter Charlatans, the
lot of them. And they know it."
--How would you like your crow served?
You seem to be the one claiming[..]
No, Jerry. You're the one that claimed that scientists are lying,
and now that you're confronted by one, you've resorted to evasions
and fallacy arguments..
--Otherwise, I agree with your political opinions wholeheartedly..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jerry Kraus" |
|
| Title: Re: DISCOUNTING LOGIC, SAVE A DOLLAR TODAY.. |
25 May 2007 12:34:52 PM |
|
|
On May 25, 12:29 pm, Kurt Lochner <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner continued poking holes in the pseudologia exhibited by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner continued poking holes in the pseudologia exhibited by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
Kurt Lochner again pointed out the fallacy arguments written by:
Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> presented his 'discounted logic' to:
________________>
Kurt, if you are so very highly qualified [..]
There's no "if" to it, Jerry..
Could you at least try to say something interesting,
just for a change?
I've already done that, Jerry, and you've replied with snot-nosed
pube-like remarks about how scientist are all lying, which I have
indicated that I take personal offense at..
You've been evading that ever since I last spanked you for it,
and next time I can make it really hurt, if that's what it will
take to get you off your obviously unqualified *****, and back to
doing the work you're paid to do. So, instead of making such
crude and unqualified remarks about your betters, why don't
you avail yourself of some much needed higher education..
--That is who you work for, in case you forgot..
Frankly, I'm a bit doubtful that you are a scientist Kurt[..]
Your uninformed opinion and expectations are not my problem.
Example follows..
Scientists tend to contribute to scientific groups[..]
Incorrect. Scientists "tend" to contribute to on-going
scientific investigations, building upon objective observations
and testing hypothesis' regarding such subjects as global warming.
That subject, itself, is of political as well as scientific interest,
and if you continue with your fallacy arguments about how *ALL*
scientists are *LYING* about this subject, I shall continue to
expose your shoddy miscomprehension and deliberate generalizations
for the contemptuous contemplations of a cretin that it is..
--Did you apply for a rebate on your "discounted logic"?
Kurt, have you considered studying spelling or grammar?
Jerry, have you considered studying logic and critical thinking?
You obviously don't know anything about science or physics.
I'll be sure to tell that to the Dean Emeritus and Chancellor..
--Certainly, they will be amused by that negative claim of yours..
Please, do put some of your [..]
Let's start with some of your own, first, Jerry..
"You don't have to be a climate expert to do simple arithmetic
and do basic statistics. There is no evidence for global warming.
None. Just "experts" creating models to generate research funding
for their laboratories. As "experts" always do. In any field."
"They're not wrong. They're lying. You're likely right that a
cure for cancer is, to some extent, being suppressed as well.
There's more money in psychoactive drugs. Professional science
is totally corrupt."
"Roger, if I were even half as stupid as you are | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
