Yes, your term is propaganda because it was introduced by the propaganda machinery of the global warming deniers in the USA.
What an absurd accusation. Check out Google Scholar. One sees plenty of uses of the phrase by researchers from at least as far back as 1989 (see page iv).
This paper
describes some of the issues associated with potential anthropogenic global warming (the
"greenhouse effect"), especially those of interest to water resource planners and managers.
So more than twenty years of usage in the field. You still have yet to address that AGW is a more appropriate term being both more descriptive and accurate than "climate change".
but I don't agree with your term "propaganda"
What is propaganda? It is communication bent to present a certain perspective. Look at the term, "climate change". What sort of climate change does it represent? Invariably, it represents human generated global warming despite there being a lot of other climate changes out there, many which have nothing to do with us (such as glacial and interglacial periods). So which label is more appropriate and accurate for anthropogenic global warming? "Climate change" or "anthropogenic global warming"? Clearly the latter.
As I see it, "climate change" was introduced as the sound bite term because "global warming" has the problem that it need not produce local warming. A lot of people seem to think that if the world is warming up, then their part of the world should as well. By using a term which doesn't imply to the naive that their little piece of land will heat up, this issue gets partly sidestepped. It also opened the door to some sleazy tricks such as the "extreme weather" gimmick where every bit of unusual weather gets attributed to "climate change".
In a german newspaper (or other europeans, I read) no one is using the term AGW...
And I'm supposed to care why? German newspapers don't show a notable resistance to propaganda usage as you demonstrated above.
On the contrary, almost EVERY large scale movement in history used a similar argument.
Well, let's look at a few examples. Major religions? Christianity started as a response to the perceived injustice of the corrupt, religious culture of ancient Judea and spread because it was a vibrant alternative to the religions of the time. Islam started as a response to systemic injustice in the Arabian Peninsula and spread because membership in the religion conferred substantial advantages.
Communism, anarachism, and similar beliefs spread because they gave a relatively nice alternative to the poor and oppressed of the time.
Even the most popular large scale movements have doubters and naysayers - for example, some colonists sided with the British during the American War of Independence
The concrete advantages of that independence movement were self-determination and not having to pay for someone else's military adventurism.
Many of these large scale movements had hidden costs and gotchas, but again so does the AGW movement which proposes to spend tens to hundreds of billions each year in unaccountable ways to fix nebulous harms. I consider that the actual driver for the movement.
Yes, the world is warming, on average, but what kills is not the average temperature rising by one or two degrees, its drought,
extreme events such as storms, ocean acidification, etc. The danger is that people think we're heading for a Mediterranean climate here in N Europe, etc. and that global warming might not be a bad thing for chilly Ireland, for example, when massive droughts and crop failures (across Europe and elsewhere) are starting to threaten global food supplies.
Any evidence that those are happening on a more frequently scale than usual? I hear the usual fears and I see the usual lack of evidence. Confirmation bias is an ever present threat under these circumstances.
And the term, anthropogenic climate change mixes a number of human activities. Sure, AGW, desertification, and deforestation (to name three problems with likely global impact which would fall under the umbrella term above) have synergistic effects. But lumping them all under one category as you do here, doesn't help us figure out which activities are causing which problems or how to use our limited resources best to mitigate the effects of what we're doing.
In particular, bad policy has been a remarkable driver of higher costs and fairly often confused for an AGW-related harm. For example just from the US, food prices have been driven up by ethanol subsidies for corn (which simultaneously drives up the price of corn, the price of gas, and reduces the availability of food) and the total cost of damage from cyclonic weather and flooding has been driven up by US government flood insurance policy (which still subsidizes to some degree construction in flood-prone areas).
Its ironic that the denialists
Yet another anti-scientific propaganda term. I find it a bit hypocritical to complain about the scientific basis of criticism of AGW while simultaneously using language that discourages scientific thought.The problem here is that there is a wide range of criticism of AGW from simply claiming it doesn't exist to disputing the claims of harm from global warming. I agree that some degree of anthropogenic global warming is occurring (though the basis for such a claim is much shakier than proponents are willing to admit), but I don't agree that the harm from AGW is as great as claimed.
For example, I have yet to see evidence that greenhouse gas emissions causes loss of crop yield globally within two orders of magnitude of bad farming practices.
Of course this raises the moral question of "what's off limits for a game"
What's "raising" this question?
Re:I've felt like this for years, too
on
Has Lego Sold Out?
·
· Score: 1
I don't see the problem. There isn't a lego piece out there that can only be used in one way. Instead, I see the increasing variety of pieces allowing for more sophisticated shapes and mechanisms.
I see you use the phrase "climate change". Given that the theory in question is actually "anthropogenic global warming", why are you using an anti-scientific propaganda term instead?
The problem is it took millions of years to recover from all of these disasters
In the case of the Permian-Triassic extinction event, there were apparently wildly various climate conditions for six million years. So one would expect a recovery to take a while just because you can't really recover in the middle of a long sequence of crises.
If there is anything I can do to stop a bunch of ignorant conservative morons from triggering yet another mass extinction event in the name of free market economics and their preference for driving to work in a 3000kg SUV I will do it.
Well, how massive a mass extinction are we talking here? As I see it, human society is probably the single most notable thing that Earth and its life has ever done, unless humanity is not the only industrial society that Earth has created.
I think we need a better excuse than "It'll kill X number of species that probably would have died off anyway" to justify screwing around with humanity - especially when one considers that much of such screwing around would actually make the problem worse. Poor people eat ecosystems. They don't save them.
This is no event that will convince the denialists because there is no event that hasn't be equaled at some point in the planets history. That the extreme events are coming faster and faster will be completely lost on them.
Now for the obvious rebuttal. Where is the evidence for extreme weather happening more often?
because other energy supplies would not oblige the military to defend the interests of oil companies.
And what would we blame that spending on next? US military spending exists at the level it's at due to wildly successful, political rent seeking, not handouts to petroleum-based industries.
You argue this on two fronts. First, the introduction of technology somehow can void a right not by rending it obsolete, but by not fitting exactly a rigid interpretation of the rights in question. I think this is a bizarre view to claim.
Second, I believe most of us understand that breaking of rights is not binary. There is the matter of degree. But it is again bizarre to claim that only big violations are violations.
You exist in the first place because a lot of people went out of their way to raise you and to build the society you enjoy. It's reasonable that you give something for future generations to have their chance as well.
Having said that, AGW advocates haven't made a case that we're better off sacrificing today rather than tomorrow. I think it's completely unreasonable to cause so much harm to our society now on the theory that it'll slightly mollify some ambiguous but supposedly vast harm in the future. I doubt many large scale movements of history have presented such a lousy argument for action.
That is like a band-aid - fixing one local problem, rather than relocating them
Ever wonder why people use band aids? Because sometimes the band aid is good enough. This is an example where it is. There will always be local disasters. Might as well do routine disaster recovery rather than abandon land due to bad risk management policies.
This would be a non-issue, if the US weren't paying (via heavily subsidized flood insurance) people to build in flood areas.
A lot of people's expectations for the consequences of global warming is the sudden deaths of hundreds of thousands, not wide-ranging low-grade economic impacts that risk hundreds of millions in property damage and puts a strain on global food supply.
Where's the need that requires us to spend tens to hundreds of billions each year and restructure our transportation and power generation infrastructure?
Seems like every backward region I've ever been too has been awash in conspiracy theories, urban legends, and superstitious horseshit.
That's not at all surprising. What would be surprising is if you had actually been to a place that wasn't backward and hillbilly. I don't know of any on Earth, for example.
Are you really telling us to use the law of gun and force rather than diplomacy ? With MAD still in effect ? Are you insane ?
It's something of a cliche to turn the tables. But perhaps you should have looked at that second question first. Last I checked, MAD is enforced only by the biggest guns around, nuclear bombs.
I still don't think it's a human rights issue though.
What would you call punishment that never stops even though it is supposed to? I'd suggest "cruel and unusual punishment" as an accurate description. Proscribing where one can live, can also create a cruel and unusual punishment (a lot of residential places are close to schools, day cares, and other places where kids congregate). The right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment is a human right observed by most countries out there.
This is especially egregious when one considers the absurdly non-criminal nature of a lot of sexual offender crime (here, statutory rape for ages that were considered adult a few generations ago).
I also mentioned the right of association. In the US, it's hidden in the First Amendment as "freedom of assembly". That is another human right that is being violated.
Because being a quant is basically intellectual fraud. I could construct a derivative to trade of a hash function of the characters in your post, it would have no actual meaning.
And you wouldn't be a "quant" either. Their main job isn't creating securities (much less creating useless ones), but rather valuing what securities are created. When you get into combinatorial markets, you quickly run into computationally hard problems where the cost of finding an optimal strategy can cost much more than the entire size of the market in question.
Nor does being a quant have anything to do with actually doing science defensible published in journals.
Your subsequent sentence undermines that. In other words, publishing is not the only form of science out there. There is serious begging the question here. Quants aren't doing science merely because you say they aren't.
That could save 400 lives a year. So why aren't gunmakers making safer guns?
400 lives a year isn't all that much (assuming that all these deaths come from legally owned guns too). Especially, considering that most of these probably were partly responsible for what killed them. And as usual with such proposals, the costs associated with the cure aren't discussed. Moneywise, there probably is some justification as long as the cost doesn't exceed oh, $2-4 billion a year (roughly the liability payout for accidental deaths in the US court system).
But we also need to consider the deaths that come from guns not working when they need to be working. It is worth noting that guns remain, at least in the US, a legal tool for self-defense and that these are commonly used as such. All these safeguards make it less likely that a gun will work when it is needed.
It's worth remembering that 21st century cars are safer even when you do get in an accident, even if you can still die in them. Sure, you can come up with scenarios where nuclear reactor safeguards probably don't work, such as a direct strike by a nuclear weapon (which I might add is not as remote a likelihood as we'd like).
But it's a bit frivolous to complain that there's still a chance of an accident. You aren't just causing risk of harm for no reason after all. There's a big benefit, power being generated, as well. The combination has to be consider, not just the negative half in isolation.
Well, consider this, why is the population of sex offenders subject to blanket constraints (not case by case even) on who they associate with (which I might add is usually a right, explicit or implicit), but not other categories of crime such as hit and run, theft, fraud, etc?
It's like scientists who go and work for banks as quants. you basically lose your science credibility, but fuck it you get easily double the pay, so you don't care anymore.
Why would they lose their science credibility? Productive applications of scientific ideas should be the primary basis for science credibility not hiding in an ivory tower. And yes, I'm not a big fan of science for science's sake.
Sure, I'm aware that a lot of these businesses hire people for the prestige of the degree not the knowledge or experience that the employee might have to offer. But colleges often operate that way as well.
And you could make the same argument about banks 'you work as one of those greedy bastards? Ewwww...' and yet they wear their MBAs Business consultant and financial manager titles with pride, oblivious to how stupid they look to anyone with a brain.
Reminds me of just about everywhere I've ever worked, including several universities. Most places are quite insular and there is no opportunity to compare small accomplishments to a bigger world. But keep in mind, almost nothing you will accomplish will look as impressive to an outsider as it would to you, who actually did the work.
The expertise in these people is not investing in small businesses, it is risk management.
No, risk management is too broad a term for what they do. If you put a VC or banker in insurance or a casino, they aren't automatically going to do well because of their past risk management experience. They'll have some advantage due to their past experiences, but they'll still need to learn the ropes to avoid major risks. Same goes with space projects. There's a lot to learn.
And angel investors generally aren't specialists in any sort of risk management.
The people who are providing the funding in the case under consideration also have zero experience in spacecraft. Additionally, they are not specialists in risk management.
And who would those people be? A big group is NASA which has the experience. On the private side we have a number of founders who might not have started with all that much experience (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and John Carmack), but they definitely have it now.
Come to think of it, nobody is born with that experience. So you can point to any investor and claim that at some point they didn't have the experience.
So once again, why should bankers, VCs, etc who already operate in successful areas gamble on a sector that they know nothing about? Why should that be a big deal? Wouldn't you say that a key goal of risk management is to understand your risks as best you can?
We'd see what we do see whether or not space activities have near future profit potential. Investors who have considerable knowledge of a risky field are the ones who end up investing in that risky field.
Sounds interesting, but irrelevant to our discussion. One doesn't need a history lesson to see that risk management is not a broadly interchangeable field that operates independent of a considerable specialized body of knowledge.
And that expensive satellite launched into the wrong orbit or which the uplink receiver failed?
Is it abandoned? There are already rules for when people just leave stuff at sea. I'm sure they'd only need to be slightly modified to cover what you're talking about here.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, your term is propaganda because it was introduced by the propaganda machinery of the global warming deniers in the USA.
What an absurd accusation. Check out Google Scholar. One sees plenty of uses of the phrase by researchers from at least as far back as 1989 (see page iv).
This paper describes some of the issues associated with potential anthropogenic global warming (the "greenhouse effect"), especially those of interest to water resource planners and managers.
So more than twenty years of usage in the field. You still have yet to address that AGW is a more appropriate term being both more descriptive and accurate than "climate change".
but I don't agree with your term "propaganda"
What is propaganda? It is communication bent to present a certain perspective. Look at the term, "climate change". What sort of climate change does it represent? Invariably, it represents human generated global warming despite there being a lot of other climate changes out there, many which have nothing to do with us (such as glacial and interglacial periods). So which label is more appropriate and accurate for anthropogenic global warming? "Climate change" or "anthropogenic global warming"? Clearly the latter.
As I see it, "climate change" was introduced as the sound bite term because "global warming" has the problem that it need not produce local warming. A lot of people seem to think that if the world is warming up, then their part of the world should as well. By using a term which doesn't imply to the naive that their little piece of land will heat up, this issue gets partly sidestepped. It also opened the door to some sleazy tricks such as the "extreme weather" gimmick where every bit of unusual weather gets attributed to "climate change".
In a german newspaper (or other europeans, I read) no one is using the term AGW ...
And I'm supposed to care why? German newspapers don't show a notable resistance to propaganda usage as you demonstrated above.
On the contrary, almost EVERY large scale movement in history used a similar argument.
Well, let's look at a few examples. Major religions? Christianity started as a response to the perceived injustice of the corrupt, religious culture of ancient Judea and spread because it was a vibrant alternative to the religions of the time. Islam started as a response to systemic injustice in the Arabian Peninsula and spread because membership in the religion conferred substantial advantages.
Communism, anarachism, and similar beliefs spread because they gave a relatively nice alternative to the poor and oppressed of the time.
Even the most popular large scale movements have doubters and naysayers - for example, some colonists sided with the British during the American War of Independence
The concrete advantages of that independence movement were self-determination and not having to pay for someone else's military adventurism.
Many of these large scale movements had hidden costs and gotchas, but again so does the AGW movement which proposes to spend tens to hundreds of billions each year in unaccountable ways to fix nebulous harms. I consider that the actual driver for the movement.
Yes, the world is warming, on average, but what kills is not the average temperature rising by one or two degrees, its drought, extreme events such as storms, ocean acidification, etc. The danger is that people think we're heading for a Mediterranean climate here in N Europe, etc. and that global warming might not be a bad thing for chilly Ireland, for example, when massive droughts and crop failures (across Europe and elsewhere) are starting to threaten global food supplies.
Any evidence that those are happening on a more frequently scale than usual? I hear the usual fears and I see the usual lack of evidence. Confirmation bias is an ever present threat under these circumstances.
And the term, anthropogenic climate change mixes a number of human activities. Sure, AGW, desertification, and deforestation (to name three problems with likely global impact which would fall under the umbrella term above) have synergistic effects. But lumping them all under one category as you do here, doesn't help us figure out which activities are causing which problems or how to use our limited resources best to mitigate the effects of what we're doing.
In particular, bad policy has been a remarkable driver of higher costs and fairly often confused for an AGW-related harm. For example just from the US, food prices have been driven up by ethanol subsidies for corn (which simultaneously drives up the price of corn, the price of gas, and reduces the availability of food) and the total cost of damage from cyclonic weather and flooding has been driven up by US government flood insurance policy (which still subsidizes to some degree construction in flood-prone areas).
Its ironic that the denialists
Yet another anti-scientific propaganda term. I find it a bit hypocritical to complain about the scientific basis of criticism of AGW while simultaneously using language that discourages scientific thought.The problem here is that there is a wide range of criticism of AGW from simply claiming it doesn't exist to disputing the claims of harm from global warming. I agree that some degree of anthropogenic global warming is occurring (though the basis for such a claim is much shakier than proponents are willing to admit), but I don't agree that the harm from AGW is as great as claimed.
For example, I have yet to see evidence that greenhouse gas emissions causes loss of crop yield globally within two orders of magnitude of bad farming practices.
If you would look beyond your limited USA horizon
Very scientific there.
So the propaganda term is AGW, not 'climate change'.
So more accurate and descriptive terms are propaganda? Not the optimally ambiguous "climate change" which could mean anything?
Of course this raises the moral question of "what's off limits for a game"
What's "raising" this question?
I don't see the problem. There isn't a lego piece out there that can only be used in one way. Instead, I see the increasing variety of pieces allowing for more sophisticated shapes and mechanisms.
I see you use the phrase "climate change". Given that the theory in question is actually "anthropogenic global warming", why are you using an anti-scientific propaganda term instead?
The problem is it took millions of years to recover from all of these disasters
In the case of the Permian-Triassic extinction event, there were apparently wildly various climate conditions for six million years. So one would expect a recovery to take a while just because you can't really recover in the middle of a long sequence of crises.
If there is anything I can do to stop a bunch of ignorant conservative morons from triggering yet another mass extinction event in the name of free market economics and their preference for driving to work in a 3000kg SUV I will do it.
Well, how massive a mass extinction are we talking here? As I see it, human society is probably the single most notable thing that Earth and its life has ever done, unless humanity is not the only industrial society that Earth has created.
I think we need a better excuse than "It'll kill X number of species that probably would have died off anyway" to justify screwing around with humanity - especially when one considers that much of such screwing around would actually make the problem worse. Poor people eat ecosystems. They don't save them.
There's no way to win this issue without completely destroying these peoples autonomy. Whats worse 100,000 cases of polio or cultural eradication?
This problem exists only because the Taliban, known cultural eradicators are willing to inflict a great deal of harm on their victims in the process.
This is no event that will convince the denialists because there is no event that hasn't be equaled at some point in the planets history. That the extreme events are coming faster and faster will be completely lost on them.
Now for the obvious rebuttal. Where is the evidence for extreme weather happening more often?
because other energy supplies would not oblige the military to defend the interests of oil companies.
And what would we blame that spending on next? US military spending exists at the level it's at due to wildly successful, political rent seeking, not handouts to petroleum-based industries.
You argue this on two fronts. First, the introduction of technology somehow can void a right not by rending it obsolete, but by not fitting exactly a rigid interpretation of the rights in question. I think this is a bizarre view to claim.
Second, I believe most of us understand that breaking of rights is not binary. There is the matter of degree. But it is again bizarre to claim that only big violations are violations.
Why should I?
You exist in the first place because a lot of people went out of their way to raise you and to build the society you enjoy. It's reasonable that you give something for future generations to have their chance as well.
Having said that, AGW advocates haven't made a case that we're better off sacrificing today rather than tomorrow. I think it's completely unreasonable to cause so much harm to our society now on the theory that it'll slightly mollify some ambiguous but supposedly vast harm in the future. I doubt many large scale movements of history have presented such a lousy argument for action.
That is like a band-aid - fixing one local problem, rather than relocating them
Ever wonder why people use band aids? Because sometimes the band aid is good enough. This is an example where it is. There will always be local disasters. Might as well do routine disaster recovery rather than abandon land due to bad risk management policies.
This would be a non-issue, if the US weren't paying (via heavily subsidized flood insurance) people to build in flood areas.
A lot of people's expectations for the consequences of global warming is the sudden deaths of hundreds of thousands, not wide-ranging low-grade economic impacts that risk hundreds of millions in property damage and puts a strain on global food supply.
Where's the need that requires us to spend tens to hundreds of billions each year and restructure our transportation and power generation infrastructure?
Seems like every backward region I've ever been too has been awash in conspiracy theories, urban legends, and superstitious horseshit.
That's not at all surprising. What would be surprising is if you had actually been to a place that wasn't backward and hillbilly. I don't know of any on Earth, for example.
Are you really telling us to use the law of gun and force rather than diplomacy ? With MAD still in effect ? Are you insane ?
It's something of a cliche to turn the tables. But perhaps you should have looked at that second question first. Last I checked, MAD is enforced only by the biggest guns around, nuclear bombs.
I still don't think it's a human rights issue though.
What would you call punishment that never stops even though it is supposed to? I'd suggest "cruel and unusual punishment" as an accurate description. Proscribing where one can live, can also create a cruel and unusual punishment (a lot of residential places are close to schools, day cares, and other places where kids congregate). The right to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment is a human right observed by most countries out there.
This is especially egregious when one considers the absurdly non-criminal nature of a lot of sexual offender crime (here, statutory rape for ages that were considered adult a few generations ago).
I also mentioned the right of association. In the US, it's hidden in the First Amendment as "freedom of assembly". That is another human right that is being violated.
Because being a quant is basically intellectual fraud. I could construct a derivative to trade of a hash function of the characters in your post, it would have no actual meaning.
And you wouldn't be a "quant" either. Their main job isn't creating securities (much less creating useless ones), but rather valuing what securities are created. When you get into combinatorial markets, you quickly run into computationally hard problems where the cost of finding an optimal strategy can cost much more than the entire size of the market in question.
Nor does being a quant have anything to do with actually doing science defensible published in journals.
Your subsequent sentence undermines that. In other words, publishing is not the only form of science out there. There is serious begging the question here. Quants aren't doing science merely because you say they aren't.
That could save 400 lives a year. So why aren't gunmakers making safer guns?
400 lives a year isn't all that much (assuming that all these deaths come from legally owned guns too). Especially, considering that most of these probably were partly responsible for what killed them. And as usual with such proposals, the costs associated with the cure aren't discussed. Moneywise, there probably is some justification as long as the cost doesn't exceed oh, $2-4 billion a year (roughly the liability payout for accidental deaths in the US court system).
But we also need to consider the deaths that come from guns not working when they need to be working. It is worth noting that guns remain, at least in the US, a legal tool for self-defense and that these are commonly used as such. All these safeguards make it less likely that a gun will work when it is needed.
It's worth remembering that 21st century cars are safer even when you do get in an accident, even if you can still die in them. Sure, you can come up with scenarios where nuclear reactor safeguards probably don't work, such as a direct strike by a nuclear weapon (which I might add is not as remote a likelihood as we'd like).
But it's a bit frivolous to complain that there's still a chance of an accident. You aren't just causing risk of harm for no reason after all. There's a big benefit, power being generated, as well. The combination has to be consider, not just the negative half in isolation.
Well, consider this, why is the population of sex offenders subject to blanket constraints (not case by case even) on who they associate with (which I might add is usually a right, explicit or implicit), but not other categories of crime such as hit and run, theft, fraud, etc?
It's like scientists who go and work for banks as quants. you basically lose your science credibility, but fuck it you get easily double the pay, so you don't care anymore.
Why would they lose their science credibility? Productive applications of scientific ideas should be the primary basis for science credibility not hiding in an ivory tower. And yes, I'm not a big fan of science for science's sake.
Sure, I'm aware that a lot of these businesses hire people for the prestige of the degree not the knowledge or experience that the employee might have to offer. But colleges often operate that way as well.
And you could make the same argument about banks 'you work as one of those greedy bastards? Ewwww...' and yet they wear their MBAs Business consultant and financial manager titles with pride, oblivious to how stupid they look to anyone with a brain.
Reminds me of just about everywhere I've ever worked, including several universities. Most places are quite insular and there is no opportunity to compare small accomplishments to a bigger world. But keep in mind, almost nothing you will accomplish will look as impressive to an outsider as it would to you, who actually did the work.
The expertise in these people is not investing in small businesses, it is risk management.
No, risk management is too broad a term for what they do. If you put a VC or banker in insurance or a casino, they aren't automatically going to do well because of their past risk management experience. They'll have some advantage due to their past experiences, but they'll still need to learn the ropes to avoid major risks. Same goes with space projects. There's a lot to learn.
And angel investors generally aren't specialists in any sort of risk management.
The people who are providing the funding in the case under consideration also have zero experience in spacecraft. Additionally, they are not specialists in risk management.
And who would those people be? A big group is NASA which has the experience. On the private side we have a number of founders who might not have started with all that much experience (Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and John Carmack), but they definitely have it now.
Come to think of it, nobody is born with that experience. So you can point to any investor and claim that at some point they didn't have the experience.
So once again, why should bankers, VCs, etc who already operate in successful areas gamble on a sector that they know nothing about? Why should that be a big deal? Wouldn't you say that a key goal of risk management is to understand your risks as best you can?
We'd see what we do see whether or not space activities have near future profit potential. Investors who have considerable knowledge of a risky field are the ones who end up investing in that risky field.
Here is a good book on the topic.
Sounds interesting, but irrelevant to our discussion. One doesn't need a history lesson to see that risk management is not a broadly interchangeable field that operates independent of a considerable specialized body of knowledge.
And that expensive satellite launched into the wrong orbit or which the uplink receiver failed?
Is it abandoned? There are already rules for when people just leave stuff at sea. I'm sure they'd only need to be slightly modified to cover what you're talking about here.