• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

“Have they no grandchildren?”

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Excerpted from “Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes” By Jeremy Grantham, GMO (hedge fund) co-founder, GMO Quarterly Letter, July, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]hat smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths. We know that for certain now, yet those who caused this fatal delay have never been held accountable.The profits of the oil and coal industry make tobacco’s resources look like a rounding error. In some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same “experts” as the tobacco industry did! The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation – making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?”
Excerpted from “We’re Gonna Be Sorry” By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, Published: July 24, 2010
[SIZE="+2"]W[/SIZE]hen I first heard on Thursday that Senate Democrats were abandoning the effort to pass an energy/climate bill that would begin to cap greenhouse gases that cause global warming and promote renewable energy that could diminish our addiction to oil, I remembered something that Joe Romm, the climateprogress.org blogger, once said: The best thing about improvements in health care is that all the climate-change deniers are now going to live long enough to see how wrong they were.

Alas, so are the rest of us. …
This is our true legacy to the next Americans, that at this moment when the harm was indisputable, that so little was done by so many. Ours is a legacy of shame.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If what you say is true, then just social engineer it. One doesn't need to tax the crap out of people who heat their homes and light their living rooms. Want people to live green? Make it expensive NOT to live green. But not at the expense of entire industries that will invisibly tax each and every one of us.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
More feel-bad guilt-tripping brain-washing from the environmental extremists.


AGW is dubious. AGW as an incipient global crisis that will imperil life-as-we-know-it is BS.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,078
Reaction score
32,899
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
More feel-bad guilt-tripping brain-washing from the environmental extremists.


AGW is dubious. AGW as an incipient global crisis that will imperil life-as-we-know-it is BS.
AGW is only "dubious" when you don't bother to educate yourself on the science behind the subject.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is our true legacy to the next Americans, that at this moment when the harm was indisputable, that so little was done by so many. Ours is a legacy of shame.
More importantly - why did you pick point #11 to quote?

Did you read everything else - this guy's sole focus is *money* - "stock market this . . . stock market that . . . "

Read the disclaimer at the bottom?

Disclaimer: The views expressed are the views of Jeremy Grantham through the period ending July 20, 2010, and are subject to change at any time based on market and other conditions.
When financial hounds take a side on global warming it really makes you wonder their true purpose in their 'view'

And see GMO's mission statements?

We see the firm's mission as the following, in order of importance:

1. To deliver superior investment performance and advice to our clients.

2. To provide a collegial and productive work environment that embodies an affirmative set of work and personal values.

3. To manage the firm in an effective and coordinated way that achieves a level of profitability sufficient to achieve the firm's mission.

4. To always put our clients' interests before our own, and to provide our clients the best service possible consistent with achieving their investment goals.

5. To develop a broad array of superior investment products.

6. To grow as fast as is consistent with our ability to perform in a superior way as an investment and professional organization.

7. To enjoy our work.
so - if going 'green' was suddenly 'cheap' would they be on board?

I think they see 'green' and see 'P R O F I T' and think of nothing more than the future of this profit - considering "non-green" as a dying profit-well and 'going green' as an expanding one.

Which is very easy to note if you *see* the cost difference between 'green' products and 'non-green' products - they're ALWAYS more expensive.

Point blank - it's a FASHION to be green and where there's a FASHION there's money-grubbers who only give a damn about their money.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,078
Reaction score
32,899
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
so - if going 'green' was suddenly 'cheap' would they be on board?

I think they see 'green' and see 'P R O F I T' and think of nothing more than the future of this profit - considering "non-green" as a dying profit-well and 'going green' as an expanding one.

Which is very easy to note if you *see* the cost difference between 'green' products and 'non-green' products - they're ALWAYS more expensive.

Point blank - it's a FASHION to be green and where there's a FASHION there's money-grubbers who only give a damn about their money.
This is precisely the reason that we'll be harming ourselves in the long term. "Going green" isn't done out of necessity, but because it's trendy, in the United States. The reason it is that way is because the denial industry has done a phenomenal job of clouding the science with their deceptions.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
This is precisely the reason that we'll be harming ourselves in the long term. "Going green" isn't done out of necessity, but because it's trendy, in the United States. The reason it is that way is because the denial industry has done a phenomenal job of clouding the science with their deceptions.
Exactly - it's a 'fad' that companies market on rather than it being something that's done out of a genuine concern or necessity. Thus ushering in the use of the 'emerald paintbrush' as a satirical award for businesses that claim 'green' without being 'green'

Personally - we've done a lot to cut down on *excessive energy and water consumption* - which includes not driving the sports car daily and not getting a new AC unit installed. For us, though, this centers around the money-saving aspects . . . and it just so happens to be otherwise ideal.

I don't use 'toxic' chemicals often when cleaning/doing laundry, never have - but what I *do* use isn't trumpeted because "it's green" - it has always been available, natural and non toxic (and non-allergenic for my kid's - key point) and I need no 'green for the environment' label to catch my attention - vinegar, baking soda, borax, citrus - all natural stuff. . . it works great, I use these things all the time. . . and it's much more affordable than any 'green' or 'non green' marketed products.

But one time I bought 'green' scissors that were marked 'made out of recyclable materials' or whatever constitutes 'green' these days - and they cost more than the other cheap ass scissors and they SUCKED. :shrug: <--- they suckered me out of $3.00 - hence Maggie's point. By 'sucked' - I mean they couldn't even CUT paper. . .I just threw them away *gasp* no - I did not recycle them.
 
Last edited:

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
More importantly - why did you pick point #11 to quote?

Did you read everything else - this guy's sole focus is *money* - "stock market this . . . stock market that . . . "

Read the disclaimer at the bottom?



When financial hounds take a side on global warming it really makes you wonder their true purpose in their 'view'

And see GMO's mission statements?



so - if going 'green' was suddenly 'cheap' would they be on board?

I think they see 'green' and see 'P R O F I T' and think of nothing more than the future of this profit - considering "non-green" as a dying profit-well and 'going green' as an expanding one.

Which is very easy to note if you *see* the cost difference between 'green' products and 'non-green' products - they're ALWAYS more expensive.

Point blank - it's a FASHION to be green and where there's a FASHION there's money-grubbers who only give a damn about their money.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to read newsletter and examine the web site.

It is a hedge fund, so, yes, growing capital is the focus. Money. So, it is kind of exceptional, for the co-founder to so bullish on addressing climate change. And what is his concern? Not the short term profits; it's the long term outcomes: our grandchildren. It really is admirable.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The real legacy of shame would be if we saddle the future generations to come with reduced standards of living, lower employment potential, and less freedom and liberty all in the vain pursuit of stopping "Global Warming".
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
First of all, thank you for taking the time to read newsletter and examine the web site.

It is a hedge fund, so, yes, growing capital is the focus. Money. So, it is kind of exceptional, for the co-founder to so bullish on addressing climate change. And what is his concern? Not the short term profits; it's the long term outcomes: our grandchildren. It really is admirable.
*His* direct and driving concern is money . . . money money money. *others* who spend that money which he pockets might have genuine concern for the future. . . but businessmen - well - I just highly doubt he'd care if it wouldn't net him a profit.

Not saying he doesn't really feel this way - I'm sure he does - but his main purpose in life is to get money, raise money, churn money, create money. . . and then everything else.

Now - *if* somewhere he took this on as a belief and genuine goal without using his money as a means and vehicle for his beliefs then I'd be less sceptical.

Per Friedman's comments - I think he fails to realize that if it didn't pass *now* it will pass in some form *later* - most things work that way.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,504
Reaction score
50,052
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AGW is only "dubious" when you don't bother to educate yourself on the science behind the subject.

Been there, done that, still find it dubious. Sensors placed in odd locations likely to result in higher-than-ambient temps or carbon levels, access to raw data being denied to critics, numerous panic-mongering conclusions published then later shown to be totally in error... no thanks, not buying it.
 

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,539
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
AGW is only "dubious" when you don't bother to educate yourself on the science behind the subject.
This is true. I used to think it was dubious, before I read up on it. Now I have and I think it's outright fraudulent.
 

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Been there, done that, still find it dubious. Sensors placed in odd locations likely to result in higher-than-ambient temps or carbon levels,
Using the sensors rated as 'trustworthy' by the skeptics who brought up this issue in the first place, you still get the same line.
access to raw data being denied to critics,
Not much, especially not in recent times.
numerous panic-mongering conclusions published then later shown to be totally in error...
A minority, compared with the majority that are true. And most of that minority were only downscaled by corrections, not removed entirely.
 

majora$$hole

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
1,268
Reaction score
168
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
future generations are the TRUE environmentalists.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
AGW is only "dubious" when you don't bother to educate yourself on the science behind the subject.
True.

The word "dubious" means "wavering or hesitating in opinion; inclined to doubt." Once people start learning about real science, the doubt vanishes and the realization that the Global Warming is a real hoax become ineluctable.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Exactly - it's a 'fad' that companies market on rather than it being something that's done out of a genuine concern or necessity. Thus ushering in the use of the 'emerald paintbrush' as a satirical award for businesses that claim 'green' without being 'green'

Personally - we've done a lot to cut down on *excessive energy and water consumption* - which includes not driving the sports car daily and not getting a new AC unit installed. For us, though, this centers around the money-saving aspects . . . and it just so happens to be otherwise ideal.

I don't use 'toxic' chemicals often when cleaning/doing laundry, never have - but what I *do* use isn't trumpeted because "it's green" - it has always been available, natural and non toxic (and non-allergenic for my kid's - key point) and I need no 'green for the environment' label to catch my attention - vinegar, baking soda, borax, citrus - all natural stuff. . . it works great, I use these things all the time. . . and it's much more affordable than any 'green' or 'non green' marketed products.

But one time I bought 'green' scissors that were marked 'made out of recyclable materials' or whatever constitutes 'green' these days - and they cost more than the other cheap ass scissors and they SUCKED. :shrug: <--- they suckered me out of $3.00 - hence Maggie's point. By 'sucked' - I mean they couldn't even CUT paper. . .I just threw them away *gasp* no - I did not recycle them.
People just have to remember that green is the new red, then everything can be sorted out easily.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
We have already made serious progress going green with our cars. They pollute 90% less of what they did back in the 70's. The money that was spent getting there was well spent. Not only do our cars burn fuel cleaner, they get more power and mpg at the same time. And not all of that progress was due to "new" technology. The overdrive transmission was, and still is, old technology that we finally decided to apply to the problem...

BUT, like most other problems we will face, if we want to do better, it will cost us dearly. The money spent getting the first 90% out of the way is peanuts compared to getting another 5% improvement. And we will never get to 100%....anyone thinking so has no understanding of chemistry and/or physics.

IMO, we should stop sweating the pollution from cars so much, and start a similar push on buildings. They are the current elephant in the room when it comes to pollution. People won't consider spending a bit extra to make their houses a lot more energy efficient, nor will they alter their wasteful lifestyles to use less energy.

I favor making us all pay a fair and honest, totally unsubsidized, rate on all our energy use. When it costs enough to make us consider using less, we will find that green is good....really good.
 

UtahBill

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
18,265
Reaction score
6,648
Location
Utah
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Having worked in and around instrumentation for a long time, I agree that sensor location is an issue. Even trained engineers can make mistakes, or misunderstand the technology and end up placing the sensors incorrectly, or using the wrong sensors. Been there, seen that....

When we are dealing with measuring temperatures on a global scale, we really can't take a few data samples here and there and extrapolate the data to cover half a continent...not even data taken from readings using satellites.
 

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
We have already made serious progress going green with our cars. They pollute 90% less of what they did back in the 70's. The money that was spent getting there was well spent. Not only do our cars burn fuel cleaner, they get more power and mpg at the same time. And not all of that progress was due to "new" technology. The overdrive transmission was, and still is, old technology that we finally decided to apply to the problem...

BUT, like most other problems we will face, if we want to do better, it will cost us dearly. The money spent getting the first 90% out of the way is peanuts compared to getting another 5% improvement. And we will never get to 100%....anyone thinking so has no understanding of chemistry and/or physics.

IMO, we should stop sweating the pollution from cars so much, and start a similar push on buildings. They are the current elephant in the room when it comes to pollution. People won't consider spending a bit extra to make their houses a lot more energy efficient, nor will they alter their wasteful lifestyles to use less energy.

I favor making us all pay a fair and honest, totally unsubsidized, rate on all our energy use. When it costs enough to make us consider using less, we will find that green is good....really good.
If you've got a spare half hour, I recommend watching this video, on 'how to sell climate change'. It's particularly interesting.

 
Top Bottom