Author Archives: Bruce Nielson

Reed Smoot and the Great Depression

Posted on by

I was reading Jim Jubak today and noticed this article about how the Smoot-Hawley Tariff had, in Jubak’s opinion, caused the great depression. I was curious about this and looked up this Wikipedia article on it. The Wikipedia article was a bit more guarded about whether or not the act had ‘contributed to the severity of the Great Depression.’

All very interesting and I have no opinions on the subject but was curious what others thought about it. Feel free to comment on the original Jubak article as well. I’m curious what other’s think.

Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions – Assuming No Risk Without Rational Evidence

Posted on by

This post is a continuation of my last post where I performed my own personal risk analysis of Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions. My conclusion was based on the idea that unless I can be completely assured that there is either no impact, no probability, or nothing I can do about it anyhow, that I should always have a risk mitigation action in place. If I don’t, I’m not doing risk mitigation competently.

I now want to consider what I see as the primary problem with the AGW Denier / Skeptic position. I believe they are starting with an assumption that CO2 Growth is either a zero impact or zero probability risk and so their risk score is coming out to be zero. (Since zero times anything is zero.)

Then, given that the risk score comes out to be zero they deduce “no action” is the appropriate response. Continue reading →

Performing a Risk Mitigation Analysis of Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions

Posted on by

In the next few posts I am going to go through the thoughts in my own head and explain how I’d go about developing a risk mitigation strategy around Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions.

In this post, I’m going to be assuming as true the four incontrovertible points that Skeptics and Believers both (for the most part) agree upon. If you disagree with one of those four incontrovertible points, then obviously you will disagree with my chosen mitigation strategy.

Also, these next few posts will be a response to three comments that were made in the past. One from Agellius, one from Eric, and one from Geoff. Their comments will allow me to discuss risk mitigation in more detail and explain why a risk mitigation approach is an appropriate one for even for AGW Skeptics. (Particularly if they consider themselves to not be in the throes of a religious war.)
Continue reading →

CO2 Emissions as Religion

Posted on by

Having taken a break, I am ready to and finish the topic of CO2 emissions. The first thing I would like to talk about is the idea that CO2 Emissions and AGW have become more religion then anything else.

You often hear conservatives say this about liberals. “Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is just a religion to you people!”

As I stated back in this post (and see also the original source post) this is largely correct.

AGW Skepticism as Religion Too

Another fair question is, why do conservatives make a religion out of it too?

“No they don’t!” you shout, religious fervor in your eyes. 😉

No, seriously, most do. You might personally be an exception. Or you might just not realize you aren’t an exception. Give me a chance to explain and then judge for yourself. Continue reading →

My Logical Analysis – The Relevance of Judge Vaughn Walker’s Sexual Orientation

Posted on by

To see the original quote being analyzed, go to this post.

First a disclaimer. I am only interested in analyzing the logic of the arguments being quoted. I am not going to pass judgement on the ethics of the arguments or who is right or wrong. Specifically, I am interested in the analogy being used.

Byran Fischer’s Argument: Being Homosexual Means You Can’t Make a Good Judgment

First, let’s take the statement by Byran Fischer, issues director for the American Family Association. Bryan argues that Judge Walker should have “recused himself from a case in which his own personal sexual proclivities utterly compromised his ability to make an impartial ruling.” The implication is that Walker was biased and therefore not an appropriate judge and his ruling should be thrown out.

How good is this argument? Continue reading →