Members banned from this thread: Cypress, evince, Taichiliberal, CharacterAssassin, Guno צְבִי and Charoite


Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: My Presentation To The Pacific Pension & Investment Institute

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default My Presentation To The Pacific Pension & Investment Institute

    .
    Presentation by Dr. Roy Spencer, as he says they wanted a balanced discussion but they couldn't get any alarmists to appear, no big surprise there! Their arrogance is truly beyond belief yet the Dems want to commit to spending trillions on chasing a chimera.

    Last week I was privileged to present an invited talk (PDF here) to the Winter Roundtable of the the Pacific Pension & Investment Institute in Pasadena, CA. The PPI meeting includes about 120 senior asset managers representing about $25 Trillion in investments. Their focus is on long-term investing with many managing the retirement funds of private sector and state employees.

    They had originally intended the climate change session to be a debate, but after numerous inquiries were unable to find anyone who was willing to oppose me.

    Like most people, these asset managers represent a wide variety of views on climate change, but what they have in common is they are under increasing pressure to make “sustainable investing” a significant fraction of their portfolios. Some managers view this as an infringement on their fiduciary responsibility to provide the highest rates of return for their customers. Others believe that sustainable investing (e.g. in renewable energy projects) is a good long-term investment if not a moral duty. Nearly all have now divested from coal. Many investment funds now highlight their sustainable investments, as they cater to investors who (for a variety of reasons) want to be part of this new trend.

    My understanding is that most investment managers have largely been convinced that climate change is a serious threat. My message was that this is not the case, and that at a minimum the dangers posed by human-caused climate change have been exaggerated. Furthermore, the benefits of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (e.g. increased agricultural productivity with no sign of climate change-induced agricultural harm) are seldom mentioned. I showed Bjorn Lomborg’s evidence for the 95% reduction in weather-related mortality over the last 100 years, as well as Roger Pielke, Jr’s Munich Re data showing no increase in insured damages as a fraction of GDP.

    One meeting organizer took considerable professional risk in insisting that I be invited to provide a more balanced view of climate change than most of the attendees had been exposed to before, and there was considerable anxiety about my inclusion in the program. Fortunately, my message (a 30 minute PowerPoint presentation [pdf here] with a panel discussion afterward) was unexpectedly well-received. An e-mail circulated after the meeting claimed that I had “changed the dynamic of future meetings.” The Heartland Institute was also involved in making this happen.

    Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti gave a speech at the first night’s dinner, in which he (as you might expect) mentioned the challenge of climate change, reducing “carbon” emissions, and his young daughter’s anxiety over global warming.

    The experience for me was gratifying. Even those few participants who disagreed with me were very polite, and we all got along very well. In what might be considered a bit of irony, on my flight to LAX we flew past the failed Ivanpah solar power facility southwest of Las Vegas, which produced a blinding white light for about 5 minutes.
    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02...ent-institute/
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 02-27-2020 at 11:09 PM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    dukkha (02-27-2020)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK. Waikoloa, HI
    Posts
    18,754
    Thanks
    6,477
    Thanked 11,418 Times in 7,537 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 270 Times in 253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    .
    Presentation by Dr. Roy Spencer, as he says they wanted a balanced discussion but they couldn't get any alarmists to appear, no big surprise there! Their arrogance is truly beyond belief yet the Dems want to commit to spending trillions on chasing a chimera.
    Arrogance or fear? Alarmists don't tend to do very well in these debates .

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to anonymoose For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (02-28-2020)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Arrogance or fear? Alarmists don't tend to do very well in these debates .
    Michael Mann does on occasion but the likes of Gavin Schmidt are far too precious to actually debate others. That's why the PCCS should be resurrected when Trump is reelected.

    .
    Shouldn’t We Get Independent Advice Before We Spend Trillions of Dollars?

    Not to date myself, but in my day the “$64,000 Question” represented a lot of money!

    Today I’m proposing to you a $64 Trillion question: “Should the United States conduct a full, independent expert scientific investigation into the models and studies that say we face a serious risk of manmade global warming, climate change and extreme weather disasters?”

    That independent expert investigation is what’s being proposed by Dr. Will Happer, President Trump’s Senior Director for Emerging Technologies, in the National Security Council. Specifically, a brand new Presidential Committee on Climate Science (PCCS) will do this analysis. The decision about launching the PCCS will be made in the next few days. America’s support for President Trump is urgently needed.

    (For the sake of brevity – and to use the most commonly employed term – when I say “global warming,” I mean all the climate changes that are supposedly caused by fossil fuel use and other human activities.)

    $64 Trillion is actually at the lower end of estimates of what it will cost the USA over the next decade to replace all our fossil fuel use with (supposedly) green, renewable, sustainable wind, solar and biofuel energy – in order to (supposedly) stabilize Earth’s climate (which has never been stable).

    Many say the obvious answer to this $64 Trillion question is YES, of course. However, many other parties are saying NO. What are the arguments against the PCCS, and do they hold water?

    If the case for alarm is so convincing, what’s the problem?

    1) It’s a waste of money to have this PCCS investigation. If the US was about to spend an enormous amount of money – such as $64 trillion or more – would you say an investigation costing one-billionth(!) of that monumental expenditure would be a waste of money? That’s what we are talking about here.

    2) It’s a waste of time. President Trump has already stated that (without new facts confirming that we actually face imminent manmade climate chaos) he’s not going to do anything consequential about global warming. So since the USA is in a holding period on this issue, how is any time being wasted?

    In fact, since the President is asking for an independent investigation, the end result could be that the PCCS would recommend that Mr. Trump take a different global warming policy position, and actually support action against fossil fuels. One would think those clamoring for exactly that would be ecstatic!

    3) Human responsibility for climate change and extreme weather has already been scientifically resolved. That is simply not so. A genuine scientific assessment has four necessary components. It must be: a) comprehensive, b) objective, c) transparent, and d) empirical. There has never been a true scientific assessment of global warming claims, anywhere on the planet.


    How about the many scientists who have valid questions about the evidence?

    What about the position of 97% of the world’s scientists? That’s a good question, because we constantly hear that virtually the entire scientific community agrees that humans are causing climate catastrophes.

    Fact one: there never has been a survey of the world’s 2+ million scientists on anything – certainly not on this vital issue, which is being used to demand the immediate end to all use of fossil fuels that today provide over 80% of all the energy the United States and entire world use.

    Fact two: There may indeed be a majority of certain subsets of scientists who hold an opinion about global warming. However, many who support climate cataclysm claims receive government or other grants that would be terminated if they began to “question the science of global warming.” And not one of them has ever conducted a genuine, evidence-based scientific analysis of the global warming matter.

    Fact three: Science is never determined by a vote. Do you think that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was accepted due to a poll? Or was it because his theory survived extensive scientific scrutiny?

    What about the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s voluminous Assessment Reports?

    Another good question. However, if we compare the reports to the four necessary requirements for Real Science, as practiced for centuries, they actually fail on at least three of the four criteria that I just presented a few paragraphs ago!

    If the global warming cataclysm proponents’ scientific arguments were as unassailable as they say they are, then those scientists should relish this high-profile opportunity to publicly upstage the skeptics and prove to the world that “dangerous manmade climate change” is real.

    On the other hand, those alarmist scientists might fail spectacularly. They might be shown to have no real-world evidence to back up their computer models and assertions. I submit that they are scared to death this would happen. That is why they oppose the PCCS so stridently.

    How about our long history of coping with changes in climate and weather extremes?

    4) Global Warming is a national security threat. This is another three-card-Monte trick being played on the technically-challenged public. Multiple studies have shown there is little correlation between extreme weather events (e.g. hurricanes, tornadoes, floods) and global warming. Moreover, our military – indeed our entire country and civilization – have been dealing with these problems for centuries, and today we have far better technologies to do so than ever before.

    On the other hand, one of the key “solutions” to Global Warming (industrial wind energy), has a well-documented history of interfering with the missions and operational readiness of our military. Where is the outcry against that?

    What’s wrong with asking questions about actions being promoted?

    5) President Trump is acting irrationally regarding global warming. Surprisingly, President Trump, as a skeptic, is actually taking a more scientific position than many scientists who hold PhDs. Skepticism is the primary pillar of Real Science. So being labeled a “skeptic” is high praise to real scientists.

    Unless we pay close attention, it may not be apparent that America’s Left is frequently in favor of exactly the opposite of what they are now saying. For example:

    * The people who say they want more unity – are actually instigating divisiveness.

    * The people who say they are protectors of the environment – are actually doing the most to ravage the environment, by demanding energy systems that require far more land, far more raw materials, and far more environmental damage than fossil fuels have ever caused.

    * The people who say immediate, extraordinary, highly disruptive changes are needed to prevent global warming catastrophe – are promoting feeble, inadequate solutions: like wind and solar energy.

    So when these same people clamor that they want President Trump to reverse his position on global warming (and the Paris Climate Accord – in reality they actually want President Trump to continue with his present climate policies and skepticism. Why is that?

    Because they think that will give them political ammunition to use against him in the 2020 election.

    Shouldn’t we try to separate private interests from the public good?

    The bottom line is very simple. President Trump should be applauded for proposing the PCCS, and for being open-minded enough to reconsider global warming claims – before our nation accepts them as gospel … and rushes headlong into disrupting our energy, economy, living standards and lives … probably for no climate benefit whatsoever.

    We citizens need to support him against the very vocal (and often very self-interested) people and organizations that strongly oppose the Presidential Committee on Climate Science. We need to take immediate action to support President Trump on this vitally important initiative.

    Send him a quick note. Real, evidence-based climate science demands that we have this PCCS review. So does the future of our country and our children.
    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2019/03...rove-the-pccs/
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 02-28-2020 at 12:47 AM.

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Arrogance or fear? Alarmists don't tend to do very well in these debates .
    Oh and Crypiss needs another good kicking over on the Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn thread.

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Anchorage, AK. Waikoloa, HI
    Posts
    18,754
    Thanks
    6,477
    Thanked 11,418 Times in 7,537 Posts
    Groans
    17
    Groaned 270 Times in 253 Posts
    Blog Entries
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Oh and Crypiss needs another good kicking over on the Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn thread.
    I really don't care about the Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn thread other than it showcases Crypiss's usual pretentiousness. Which I like to make fun of. Which he calls slander.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to anonymoose For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (02-28-2020)

  9. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,958
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,036 Times in 13,846 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    .
    Presentation by Dr. Roy Spencer, as he says they wanted a balanced discussion but they couldn't get any alarmists to appear, no big surprise there! Their arrogance is truly beyond belief yet the Dems want to commit to spending trillions on chasing a chimera.



    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/02...ent-institute/
    Interesting, while speakers as this Dr Spencer have the liberty to offer advice as "most investment managers have largely been convinced that climate change is a serious threat. My message was that this is not the case," those actually reponsible for planning for possible effects and not delivering speeches see it quite differently

    https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/2...EPORT-2019.PDF
    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...hange-threats/
    https://climateandsecurity.org/2019/...ecurity-issue/

    I'll go with those having the responsibilities rather than those paid to give a speech

  10. The Following User Groans At archives For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (02-28-2020)

  11. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archives View Post
    Interesting, while speakers as this Dr Spencer have the liberty to offer advice as "most investment managers have largely been convinced that climate change is a serious threat. My message was that this is not the case," those actually reponsible for planning for possible effects and not delivering speeches see it quite differently

    https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/2...EPORT-2019.PDF
    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...hange-threats/
    https://climateandsecurity.org/2019/...ecurity-issue/

    I'll go with those having the responsibilities rather than those paid to give a speech
    It's plainly apparent that you've never heard of the UAH satellite temperature dataset maintained by Roy Spencer and John Christy. It's pretty damn ironic, as you're always quoting NASA, that they are paid by NASA to compile the data and they use NOAA satellites equipped with Microwave Sounding Units onboard to gather the ionospheric temperature data.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-...-temperatures/

  12. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    It's plainly apparent that you've never heard of the UAH satellite temperature dataset maintained by Roy Spencer and John Christy. It's pretty damn ironic, as you're always quoting NASA, that they are paid by NASA to compile the data and they use NOAA satellites equipped with Microwave Sounding Units onboard to gather the ionospheric temperature data.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-...-temperatures/
    Oh no Arsecheese has done a runner!

  13. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    I really don't care about the Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn thread other than it showcases Crypiss's usual pretentiousness. Which I like to make fun of. Which he calls slander.
    I know you don't care about good old Alex, but Crypiss never misses a chance to show people how learned he is, total scumbag.

Similar Threads

  1. Newly rich celeb Christine Ford picked by Sports Illustrated for award presentation
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 12-14-2018, 12:13 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2018, 11:03 AM
  3. Federal scientist cooked climate change books ahead of Obama presentation
    By Cancel 2018.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 03-06-2017, 05:36 AM
  4. Should Damocles institute fees?
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Introductions, User Announcements, Suggestions and General Board Discussion
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-10-2012, 10:15 AM
  5. FDNY Set To Institute ‘Crash Tax’
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-12-2010, 07:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •