Oct

17

25 Comments

  1. clearly  

    ...this is what we pay jeff sachs millions for...

  2. i thought  

    Actually Im pretty sure Jeffrey Sachs only gets paid $30k plus a free room in Wein.

    • slightly off  

      This is how we end world poverty...

      http://chronicle.com/weekly/v49/i13/13a01002.htm

      SACHS, OFF FIFTH AVENUE: The traditional inhabitants of New York's Upper West Side -- shrinks, lawyers, and writers -- are being joined by an economist. Columbia University lured Jeffrey D. Sachs, a prominent economist, away from Harvard University in April, reportedly paying him more than $300,000. Now, it is providing him with one of the city's toniest addresses.

      The university has spent a whopping $8-million to buy a renovated townhouse on 85th Street, a mere block from Central Park, for the new Earth Institute, which he was hired to lead. Twenty-feet wide -- large by Manhattan standards -- the home is the most expensive single-family townhouse in the area, according to real-estate agents.

      The first floor of the townhouse will serve as a reception center for the institute, which is designed to increase collaboration among the university, international dignitaries, and the United Nations. Mr. Sachs, 48, and his family will rent the three upper floors, which feature six bedrooms, a dumbwaiter to the main kitchen, several marble baths, and numerous wood-burning fireplaces. Columbia has not disclosed the amount Mr. Sachs is paying in rent.

  3. Overheard in Pupin  

    "Until I was 13, I used to think gefilte fish was a type of fish. I asked my mom where gefilte fish live, and she was like "no, honey..." "
    .
    .
    .
    "But gefilte fish is the baloney of the sea!"

  4. republican  

    Global warming, like the ISO's chances of getting anything accomplished, doesn't exist.

  5. if by  

    if by wien you mean his $10 million mansion paid for by columbia

  6. Anonymous  

    Clearly, objective scientific evidence derived from several decades worth of quantitative data is not convincing enough for you. Perhaps if someone reprograms Bill O'Reilly's brain chip, he will start barking about global warming and you will believe. After all, it's common knowledge that all scientists are dirty liberal anarchofascist jihadists bent on desotroying your moral values so that intelligence ::shudder::...oh that god-awful word...will prevail over the religious zealotry you have so come to love.

      • Anonymous  

        that's wonderful. I watch South Park too.

        • yeah.  

          they're good at ad homs and using inconclusive results to support their political views to.

          as a scientist, its obvious you have no idea what time scales climate change can operate on or the fact that there are actually numerous harvard, mit, csu, etc climatologists/physicists/geologists who are all skeptical of the idea that humans are driving current global warming

          • ugh  

            There are a few scientists who deny the human causation of global warming, but they are greatly outnumbered by those who believe that humans are driving it. The American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science all believe that something should be done about global warming. But hey, they clearly don't know nothing, since they're not funded by the industries producing greenhouse gasses, right?


            I'm a conservative, and I still don't why anyone would so fervently deny the possibility that humans are making an impact on the environment - at least not unless they benefit financially from said denial.

            I mean, think about it. What's a more likely scenario: A) Industries are funding scientists to diminish the concern about global warming in order to avoid costly environmental regulation... or B) Scientists are going out of their way to produce bullshit theories so that they can somewhat financially hinder certain industries (for their own amusement, presumably)?

  7. remember

    when bwog was funny? those were the days. *sighs wistfully*

    • dudes  

      Forget fighting the guy whose only source on global warming is Steven Milloy, consider the more important part of this post - we've already reached bwog "you should've seen this place back when, it sure used to be funny" nostalgia!


      yay!

  8. i like  

    porn. bwog needs porn.

  9. Anonymous  

    uh. people respond to incentives. scientists get more research money if they say global warming is mankind's fault and a big problem.

    maybe it is our fault, and maybe it is a big problem. but don't blindly trust the scientists. sure, industrialists have incentives to lie. but so do scientists.

    (i happen to think it's only partly our fault and not too big a problem. yes, i've read the skeptical environmentalist. yes, the 1st edition had some errors, but none that undermined the central arguments. no, i don't blindly trust it either.)

    • indeed  

      how do you think scientists get grants? to study models which predict temperature fluctuations are normal natural processes.

      by the way, #12, you're again ad homing..first of all, there is little empirical evidence which conclusively supports human driven global warming (most of it is based upon complex and poorly devised/understood models)..second of all, its a grave charge to impugn the integrity of tenured profs at harvard, mit and csu becuase you disagree with their position or because they recieve grant money or have some tenuous connection with an energy company. aslo, you're also being very amateurish by assuming i don't think measures should be taken to combat global warming or to reduce pollution anyway. but hey, don't let facts or the fact that your strawmen don't exist to get in the way of your point

  10. bwog  

    considering you were one of the groups represented, i'm hoping i can count on a recap of the aclu free speech event which i couldn't attend

  11. free speech  

    is for pussies

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.