This Is Not Good

Young Americans’ Growing Distrust of Science - Harvard Political Review:

Perhaps the most prominent example of Americans failing to recognize a well-tested and proven scientific consensus is in the field of climate change and global warming. According to over 18 different scientific bodies and 97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies, scientists agree that climate change is happening and is very likely due to human activity.

Despite the overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus amongst experts in the field, climate cynicism persists. According to the 2015 Harvard Public Opinion Project, 23 percent of young adults when asked to describe their view on climate change selected the choice: “Global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven.” Among self-described Republicans the proportion is even higher, at 42 percent of respondents.

Some Things Never Seem To Change

Why is it OK for the people in power to beat up and detain the less powerful who are simply trying to tell their side of things? Why is it OK for the powerful to use violence, but not OK for those who are powerless?

From Climate talks deadlocked as clashes erupt outside by Charles J. Hanley:

Police fired pepper spray and beat protesters with batons outside the U.N. climate conference Wednesday, as disputes inside left major issues unresolved just two days before world leaders hope to sign a historic agreement to fight global warming.

Hundreds of protesters were trying to disrupt the 193-nation conference, the latest action in days of demonstrations to demand "climate justice" — firm steps to combat global warming. Police said 230 protesters were detained.

Hundreds of protesters marched on the suburban Bella Center, where lines of Danish riot police waited in protective cordons. Some demonstrators said they wanted to take over the global conference and turn it into a "people's assembly." As they approached police lines, they were hit with pepper spray, and TV pictures showed a man being pushed from a police van's roof and struck with a baton by an officer.

Clearly, no one is representing these protesters at this conference. Why not?

Caution, Balance, And Gambling "Conservatives"

“…everybody knows that most people who trade in the market lose money at it in the end.” Benjamin Graham

Once upon a time caution was considered to be a good thing. Now it seems as though the word has been excised from the dictionary. Caution and balance seem to be nonexistent in the corporate world and in the political world. Unfortunately this affects my world.

Once upon a time gambling was considered to be a bad thing. Now it seems to be the means for greedy people who already own more than most of us to try to own even more. And when they win the rest of us lose, and when they lose the rest of us lose. I’m part of a game that I don’t even want to play.

Once upon a time the word conservative meant “marked by moderation or caution.” Now it seems to mean radical (“marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional”) gambler (“to play a game for money or property, to bet on an uncertain outcome.”)

These changes have caused great loss and hardship for many.

Once upon a time insurance companies and banks were cautious entities. They did not gamble. It was illegal for them to do so.

From The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham (page 60):

Our argument against the purchase of corporate bonds and preferred stocks by the defensive investor needs now to be balanced by an argument in favor of placing some part of his funds in high-grade common stocks. In the old days such a proposal was little short of heresy. All common stocks were considered more or less risky and therefore unsuited for a conservative portfolio. This concept was and remains embedded in the state laws governing the investments of trust funds (unless the instrument provides to the contrary) and also those of savings banks and life insurance companies, which in many states may not hold common stocks.

That is from the 1949 edition. Mr. Graham also states that this conservative approach was also mandated by law for university endowment funds. How things have changed. (Also, his argument against the purchase of corporate bonds and preferred stocks had to do with a preference for U.S. Savings Bonds at the time. He did not dislike corporate bonds and preferred stocks, he simply saw that at the time U.S. Savings Bonds paid higher interest and provided more safety.)

From The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham (page 12):

Investment requires and presupposes a margin of safety to protect against adverse developments. In market trading, as in most other forms of speculation, there is no real margin for error; you are either right or wrong, and if wrong you lose money. Consequently, even if we believed that the ordinary intelligent reader could learn to make money by trading in the market, we should send him elsewhere for his instruction. But everybody knows that most people who trade in the market lose money at it in the end. The people who persist in trying it are either (a) unintelligent, or (b) willing to lose money for the fun of the game, or (c) gifted with some uncommon and incommunicable talent. In any case they are not investors.

Like I said, the changes that I mentioned earlier have caused great loss and hardship for many. However, I have no sympathy for those at the top of AIG.

From AIG top staff struggle financially: report by Ajay Kamalakaran:

Top executives at troubled insurer American International Group have been struggling financially after taking personal losses in the wake of the near-collapse of the company last year, AIG's chief executive Robert Benmosche told the Wall Street Journal in an interview.

The losses were incurred when the executives' cash bonuses were cut and unvested stock salary and stock options that were previously earned were rendered almost worthless after AIG's near-failure in September 2008, the paper said.

Benmosche told the paper that 10 people reporting directly to him lost a combined $168 million in prior years' pay since the insurer was bailed out by the U.S. government last year.

Five other employees at the company's financial-products division, who are unwinding its derivative trades, lost $88 million in prior pay, the paper cited Benmosche as saying.

"Many people think there was no penalty for the executives at AIG when it did poorly and that they need longer-term compensation so they don't benefit from taking inordinate amounts of risk," Benmosche told the paper.

"But if you look at where they've been this year, they've been pretty much wiped out," the paper quoted Benmosche as saying. "And we have to recognize that we're not 100 percent sure about what the value of AIG will be in the future."

How can this be? At an insurance company? Insurance is “a means of guaranteeing protection or safety.” Not only did the “top staff” at AIG fail their customers, they have failed themselves.

Again I ask, how can this be? Let’s do some basic arithmetic. 168 divided by 10 is 16.8. 88 divided by 5 is 17.6. So 10 people lost 16.8 million dollars each. And 5 people lost 17.6 million dollars each. What the hell kind of money were these people making when business was good? And the bigger question, why is all of that money gone now? (“… they've been pretty much wiped out…"). Compared to these people I make very little money. I invest heavily in stocks. Like everyone else my portfolio suffered when the stock market collapsed recently. However, I was not wiped out. Again. How can this be? Perhaps it is because I try to be an intelligent investor and not a greedy gambler. I have also never whined to the Wall Street Journal, or anyone for that matter, about my losses.

At AIG we have “unintelligent” people, “willing to lose money for the fun of the game.” Definitely not “gifted with some uncommon and incommunicable talent.” Clearly “they are not investors.” AIG's chief executive Robert Benmosche seems to think that they deserve our sympathy. They are not getting any from me. Instead I ask a question. Why do they still work at AIG?

Allow me to shift gears here. Did George W. Bush show any moderation and caution when he decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Or was he gambling? Making a high stakes bet using other people's lives, and other people's money?

Allow me to shift gears again. I see a parallel with this issue to the current debate on global warming. Those who side with Sarah Palin, believing in “climategate” and denying global warming seem to be gambling on our future. The stakes are very high. Shouldn’t we at the very least be truly conservative here? What is wrong with a little moderation and caution when it comes to the future of the planet? Could we please put more intelligence into this debate and remove the greed component? Sarah Palin’s either/or argument seems incredibly dangerous. What if she is wrong? Once again I feel like I’m part of a game that I don’t even want to play.

Thick As A Brick

Sarah Palin responding to the responders:

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”

Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it.

However, he’s wrong in calling me a “denier.” As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

Logic? What is this thing called logic?

Obviously, Al Gore is claiming that Palin denies the existence of global warming. (Gore says “global warming is not a political issue but a moral one.”) So, of course Palin chooses to base her argument on the existence of climate change. Somehow this all makes perfect sense to Palin and to all those who have bought her book and think she is the next saviour of the country, if not the world. How ironic.

If Palin can make such a simple error of logic, why should we believe her when she claims to understand the science of both climate change and global warming?

Update:
In case you are wondering what a climategate is, take a look here.

Time To Out-Crazy The Crazies?

“If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you.” Benjamin Franklin

And, the crazy wolves (Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and all the rest) are the scariest of all.

From Time to Out-Crazy Glenn Beck by Jere Hester:

The latest “SNL” also featured a “Weekend Update” segment with Al Gore, whose efforts to raise awareness about global warming were once likened by Beck to the Holocaust.

Gore joked in the “SNL” bit that it’s time “to out-crazy the crazies.” He was talking about going to extremes to get attention for the fight against global warming, but he might as well have been giving political advice to the Democratic Party and mainstream Republicans.

“Instead of science, I’m going with crazy.”


Hey Obama, my man, maybe it’s time to loosen up, get down, and start acting crazy.

It’s the latest craze.

Proponents And Skeptics

From Deep Freeze by Josh Marshall:

I've always been curious why it is that the big proponents of the theory of man-made global warming tend to be scientists and the big skeptics tend to be talk radio hosts and members of Congress.

Hey Hey, My My

Why are we letting a “sport” contribute to global warming?

From Gentlemen, Stop Your Engines by Robert Weintraub:

But NASCAR's biggest problem isn't fixable with a couple of sexy drivers or a breathless season finale in Miami. The sport can't escape the fact that the internal combustion engine and fossil fuels are technologies on a steep downslope. With hybrids and electrics on the way in, it's hard to see where gas-guzzling, emission-belching stock cars fit in. Unlike the Indy Racing League and Formula 1 (open-wheel racing circuits famous for the Indy 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix, respectively), NASCAR has yet to implement alternative-fuel programs—hell, it only switched to unleaded gasoline last season!

Continuing to fund stock-car racing would be a sign that Detroit simply cannot function in the new century. When and if U.S. automakers come up with a better alternative to their outmoded product, I'll be all for getting them out to racetracks to trade a little paint. But there is an unshakeable anachronistic whiff to NASCAR these days. Like the saber-toothed tiger and the cassette tape, stock cars had their time—but that time is now past. Yes, it flamed out quickly, but that's how Neil Young says it should happen. Detroit's nightmare is an opportunity for NASCAR to do the right thing and suspend operations. Once it goes, we'll probably wonder why it ever existed in the first place.

Hummers On Water, And Then Some

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If a billionaire has a lot of money, must he spent more of it than a non-billionaire? Is there a point where consumption becomes immoral?

From The world's greatest super-yachts by Mike Steere:

At 160 meters long, there is nothing quite as luxurious as the world's largest and most expensive super-yacht -- Dubai.

Except, of course, for the next nineteen boats that make up the top twenty super-yachts on the planet.

Packed with more features than a Bond villain's base, including jet-ski docks, indoor swimming pools, helicopter pads (in some cases two helipads), Jacuzzis and submarines, no expense is spared on these ocean-going giants.

The internationally-renowned Fort Lauderdale Boat Show is set to get underway at the end of October, where many of the world's top super-yachts will be on display. Now, you can take a look at some of the biggest and best yachts in existence.

I’d be willing to bet that one of these “super-yachts” contributes more to global warming than most small towns in the United States do. If I was a religious man, the word sinful would come to mind. Since I’m not religious, I think I’ll go with the word disgusting.

The Exact Opposite Conclusion

From It's 1984 at the Wall Street Journal by James Hrynyshyn:

So let me get this straight: a president in his final year in office lays out a plan that calls for doing NOTHING about greenhouse gas emissions for 17 years — and even then fails to call for a mandatory cap — isn't abdicating responsibility and handing over the task to his successor? Incredible. It's hard to believe that the writer(s) who cranked out the editorial can sleep at night.

And to imply Bush isn't ready to "wave aside economic considerations in the interests of 'doing something'" is just plain bizarre. I guess those trivial items called the $9-trillion debt and the quagmire called Iraq are just figments of my imagination.