Home > Economics - General > Monday Message Board

Monday Message Board

July 28th, 2008

It’s time, a bit late in the day, for Monday Message Board. Comment on any topic; civilised discussion and no coarse language please.

Categories: Economics - General Tags:
  1. joe2
    July 28th, 2008 at 19:40 | #1

    What is it with my local Melbourne based, ABC?

    They took to spruiking the stockmarket, even on a news report, with advice that banking shares are now ‘great buying’, without appropriate advice that it was only based on an opinion.

  2. Ikonoclast
    July 28th, 2008 at 20:34 | #2

    Since all things are now connected in a global economy (for example bank share prices and the peak oil phenomenon) I might get away with pointing to this.

    Go here and read Ian Dunlop’s report “Peak oil – the trigger for global sustainability”

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2008/2313512.htm

    If you have a slow (ADSL1) connection like me you can read the transcript.

    I think this report is excellent and sums up the issues very well.

  3. July 28th, 2008 at 22:17 | #3

    The environmental crisis much like the weather is a multifaceted phenomenon for which their are several, non-executive, solutions.

    I was surprised to learn to quote Tony Lovell that “soil carbon can play a critical role in reversing the effects of global warming”. Carbon farming through such techniques as “time-controlled grazing management, pasture cropping and biologically beneficial farming practices” can be used to restore degraded soils so that they are able “to absorb 5 times more organic carbon in their surface layers than they currently hold”.

    It seems though that my backyard will not be big enough, or that I will be positively active enough to balance my carbon footprint. Before we cut down a tree we should measure the circumference to be able to balance the account.

  4. Tony G
    July 30th, 2008 at 01:30 | #4

    test

  5. Tony G
    July 30th, 2008 at 01:35 | #5

    My anti AGW comments get censored on this blog…

    It makes you wonder if this is true?

  6. July 30th, 2008 at 02:19 | #6

    From tony g

    People may have notice me doing a few “test” posts lately. A lot of my posts are not getting through.

    I have now realised I am the victim of censorship, just because I am not a AGW alarmist and post views contrary to the Labour Party.

    Links that I have tried to post to some dissenting views and science that question AGW get censured on this blog. Links to pages from Kininmonth, Evans or Miranda Devine and even science pages like satellite temperature readings or energy emitted from the sun etc etc get blocked on this blog.

    My pseudonym above ‘Fight Censorship’ above is linked to Bolts comments re censorship of AGW dissenters.

    Bolts blog and Devines article linked to it are certainly true and apply to Quiggin, so the truth must hurt.

  7. jquiggin
    July 30th, 2008 at 06:52 | #7

    Tony G, I haven’t blocked any of your comments, and only one has come up for moderation – maybe they look like spam and are being blocked by my host. But the idea that Miranda Devine and Andrew Bolt are the victims of censorship is even sillier than your general run of stuff.

    I’ve given extensive publicity to the fact that conservatives oppose science, with specific reference to both Devine and Bolt. I’ve generally tried to move on from this stuff, but maybe I should give it another airing.

  8. Tony G
    July 30th, 2008 at 10:28 | #8

    John,your spam filter seems mighty discriminatory, I will just have to take your word for it.

    Maybe you, a majority of politicians in this country and a large proportion of people that believe everything they read in the newspaper, are convinced of the hypothetical science of the AGW Alarmists, but that doesn’t make them right.

    Here is 31,000 scientists who disagree with your AGW hypothesis .

    If Australia introduces an ETS, even by the alarmist reckoning it will not actually reduce world wide carbon emissions, but it will deliberately wreck the Australian economy in order to symbolically try to reduce carbon emissions.

  9. Tony G
    July 30th, 2008 at 10:35 | #9

    Sorry, it should be this link to the 31,000 scientists who disagree with AGW;

    http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

  10. July 30th, 2008 at 10:43 | #10

    Tony G,
    While I often disagree with our host, and am certainly not a member of the ALP nor an AGW “alarmist” I have never had a comment of mine censored here – and I have been here for over 4 years.
    While I do think he is wrong on some issues, I have no reason to doubt his integrity.
    Over the last few weeks the server has been having some issues and a couple of comments of mine have not appeared due to this (I get an error page when that happens). If this is an issue for you, I would suggest typing out your comment in a text editing program and then copying and pasting it into the comments box and then submitting it.
    If it appears, all well and good. Otherwise, wait a minute, refresh the page and try again.

  11. Tony G
    July 30th, 2008 at 11:35 | #11

    Well Andrew, I hear what you are saying, but he has pulled some of my comments due to the content and not for just for swearing, so it is a bit of both, but maybe more of the spam filter in this instance.

    I am not questioning his integrity, it is his blog and he can run it the way he feels fit, but if he or others make public comments, then they are fair game in my book (regardless if they feel my retorts are stupid).

  12. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 11:36 | #12

    I’ve had messages get lost in the spam filter here – and I’m hardly an AGW denialist.

    As for the “31,000 scientists”, who could doubt the scientific credentials of Geri Helliweill PhD; Michael J Fox PhD and Perry Mason Ph. D.

    It does appear that Drs. M Mouse and D. Duck have withdrawn their support though.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

    “Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers‐a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.”

    Also isn’t there a standard skeptic argument that science is not a democracy and that the number of people supporting a position is wholly irrelevant to its validity?

  13. derrida derider
    July 30th, 2008 at 11:50 | #13

    May I suggest, Tony G, that if you don’t like John’s comments policy you exercise your right to free speech by posting on your own blog. I’ve had comments “censored” on blogs , and even as I’ve disagreed with a blog owner’s judgement I’ve never questioned their right to keep or delete comments on their own blog as they see fit.

    This is John’s blog, he’s a very busy man, he has coverd AGW denialist arguments exhasutively elsewhere, and he has no obligation at all to post your drivel.

  14. Tony G
    July 30th, 2008 at 13:16 | #14

    derrida derider

    How John runs his blog is his business, I am not arguing with that, mearly pointing out that There is something odd about the ferocious amount of energy expended suppressing any dissent from orthodoxy on climate change.” MD

    “he has coverd AGW denialist arguments”
    ‘AGW is a hypothesis’ that might sound like drivel to you, but until it changes to a fact, how can you say he has covered the arguments?

    Nice try Ian,

    I can not see Micky Mouse Here

  15. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 13:47 | #15

    “I can not see Micky Mouse Here”

    As I said “M Mouse” and “D Duck” have been removed.

    Unlike Perry Mason et al.

  16. Tony G
    July 30th, 2008 at 14:13 | #16

    Where is fox?

    Come on Ian there are serious flaws in the AGW hypothesis.

  17. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 14:19 | #17

    Tony G – in that case feel free to link to them.

    Just don’t link to a blatantly dishonest poll that asks you to treat MDs and Vets as being as knowledgeable as actual climate scientists on climate science.

    Tell me if those same doctors and vets signed a petition supporting intelligent design would you be as quick to proclaim their scientific expertise?

  18. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 14:30 | #18

    It appears Perry S. Mason is real.

    He teaches at that eminent seat of learning Lubbock Christian University and is a fundamentalist Christian preacher.

  19. Tony G
    July 30th, 2008 at 16:24 | #19

    Ian,

    There are similarities between yourself and Perry Mason, you both have faith in an hypothesis. The main difference is Perry is not mandating everybody to join his church.

    Is it a “dishonest poll”?

    “All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.”

    Evaluate the breakdown of the fields for yourself Here

    Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions.

    “When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him.”

    http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Review_Article.html

    “The United Nations IPCC also publishes a research review in the form of a voluminous, occasionally-updated report on the subject of climate change, which the United Nations asserts is “authoredâ€? by approximately 600 scientists. These “authorsâ€? are not, however – as is ordinarily the custom in science – permitted power of approval the published review of which they are putative authors. They are permitted to comment on the draft text, but the final text neither conforms to nor includes many of their comments. The final text conforms instead to the United Nations objective of building support for world taxation and rationing of industrially-useful energy.”

    Ian, what is an “actual climate scientist” feel free to link to them.”

  20. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 17:11 | #20

    An “actual climate scientist” is a scientist who has undertaken formal study in climate science or climatology and has published peer-reviewed works in recognised science journals.

    If I suggested that Vets and doctors were less qualified than actual biologists to give an opinion on evolutionary science would you be demanding to know what an “actual biologist” was?

  21. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 17:14 | #21

    Oh and ig scientists typically base their vviews on a topic on a review article, can we take it that any signatories to the petition before October 2007 when the review article was added were doing so on a basis of inadequate information?

  22. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 17:25 | #22

    http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/one-more-petition-still-a-consensus/

    Someone took a sample of the Oregon petition signatories ;

    “Of 60 samples (including 54 phD’s), there were a grand total of zero publications behind the sampled signatories that were relevant to climate or climate change. None has specific background in meteorology, climatology, oceanography, etc and just two with a geology background (including one who is now deceased).”

  23. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 17:31 | #23

    A debunking of the “review article”.

    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM#Credits

  24. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 18:15 | #24

    Funny isn;t it how in my religious fervor to obscure the truth and ignore the facts I actually check whether one of the supposedly bogus Oregon petition names is genuine and post the results despite the fact they don’t support my position.

    Maybe tony G should consider my example before he next posts about private health cover being abolished and solar panels being banned.

    Others might want to ask themselves what sudns more liek a religion:

    1. a group made up primarily of members of the US religious right promulgating conspiracy theories about a massive effort by millions of scientists to falsify evidence to support the establishment of a Socialist New World Order.

    2. A scientific theory which is supported by approximately 99% of the relevantly qualified scientists and endorsed by. amongst others, the British Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences.

  25. Tony G
    July 30th, 2008 at 18:54 | #25

    Ian,

    Search for a Uni course on climate or climatology under all NSW providers here;

    http://www.goingtouni.gov.au/CourseFinderSearch.htm

    It comes up blank Ian.

    Would it be possible the disciplines pertaining to climate or climatology are contained in a broad church of disciplines? like;

    meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields

    The very people who signed the petition.

  26. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 19:27 | #26

    On the other hand Tony if you type in “Environment” or “environmental science: you get several hits.

    Very few of them ,you’ll be surprised to learn are devoted to the destruction of free market capitalism and making Al (the Anti-Christ) Gore ruler of the world.

  27. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 19:37 | #27

    You might also want to do a google search on the words “climate science University course” for Australia.

    Amongst the first 10 of the 60,000+ hits:

    University of Souther Queensland Graduate Certificate in climate Science;

    Murdoch University (Global Warming and Climate Science – BSc)

    University of Western Australia (Bachelor of Science (Climate Studies))

    And while there may be no current courses in New South Wales with the words “climate science” in their title. UNSW is currently advertising for a LECTURER/SENIOR LECTURER
    (CLIMATE SCIENCE, CLIMATE IMPACTS
    AND/OR CLIMATE ADAPTATION)

  28. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 19:38 | #28

    “On the other hand Tony if you type in “Environmentâ€? or “environmental science: you get several hits.”

    That should read “several hundred hits”.

  29. Tony G
    July 30th, 2008 at 20:29 | #29

    Ian,

    The environment
    is not climate science or climatology.

    But do not worry Ian, I am sure NSW will get up to speed soon and start producing the needed ‘climate scientists’ to tackle climate change…. or is there to many of them already.

  30. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 21:03 | #30

    Tony, ever actual strudy Environemtnal science.

    In between sacrificing unbaptised Christain babies to Satan and scourging yourself for the in of being white, you’ll study subjects like this.

    http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/STIP4/app?page=CourseEntry&service=external&sp=S2004ENG

    and

    http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/STIP4/app?page=CourseEntry&service=external&sp=S2301ENV

    and

    http://www3.griffith.edu.au/03/STIP4/app?page=CourseEntry&service=external&sp=S1004ENV

    But hey I’m sure the average Amerrican pre-med degree covers that stuff, right?

  31. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 21:09 | #31

    Oh and Tony here’s the list of authors of the IPCC TAR 4 chapter on the underlyign science of climate change.

    Want to put any money on whether there are any vets or pediatriiicans on the list?

  32. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 21:18 | #32

    Here’s the staff page for the Bureau of Meterology Climate Research Group.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/climatehp.htm

    Dr. David Hendon

    B. A. (Meteorology), 1979,
    University of California at Los Angeles

    Ph. D. (Atmospheric Sciences), March 1985,
    University of Washington, Seattle.

    Julie Arblaster

    Bachelor of Technology in Atmospheric Science (Hons), Macquarie University
    Masters of Science, University of Colorado

    Want me to go on?

    By the way. congrats on ignoring all the non-NSW climate science courses offered in Australia.

    That level of cherry-picking is worthy of McIntyre himself.

    Next of coruse you should seamlessly switch to using the existence of these courses as proof that global warmign is a huge money-grubbing scam and as evidence than innocent young people are being brainwashed by the green propaganda machine.

  33. Ian Gould
    July 30th, 2008 at 21:19 | #33

    Sorry missed the link to the IPCC authors list.

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf

  34. Donald Oats
    July 30th, 2008 at 21:23 | #34

    Perhaps it is worth considering that deep scepticism in the anthropogenic global warming theory is in itself susceptible to the charge of being a belief. If the goal is to increase one’s understanding of the Earth’s climate system, then reflexive dismissal of new results (whether related to AGW or not) is hardly the path to intellectual growth.

    Being sceptical in scientific analysis is nowhere near the same thing as the denial barrage passing for critical analysis in the mass media. Digging into a scientific result, in order to understand it, sometimes leads to its later refutation. This is scientific progress. But proclaiming a result to be false, without bothering to understand the reasoning and evidence behind it, is not scepticism – it is just denialism.

    A few true sceptics exist but I don’t see them in the national newspaper, presumably because they exceed the abysmal standard of evidence (ie none) set by some recent articles. Wouldn’t want an opinion piece with a real sceptic saying “but on the other hand…”; it would wreck the illusion of science just being a slanging match between opposing sides.

  35. Ian Gould
    July 31st, 2008 at 18:21 | #35

    A while back there was a disucssion here on interent economics.

    One issue I meant to raise at the time is the provision of public goods on the internet.

    It seems to me that anti-virus and anti=spam software have strong public good characteristics. Once the software has been written, the marginal cost of additional copies is extrmeely though.

    Unprotected machines generate significant net externalities. (For example, a significant percentage of total net traffic is spam generated via zombie networks. Get rid of that traffic and overall net speeds would increase and ISPs wouldn’t need to invest as much in increasing network capacity.)

    The question is, why doesn’t the market currently adequately fund such software?

    Note please, I’m not arguing for some form of government intervention, I’m asking what it would take to encourage companies like Microsoft and Bigpond to make the anti-virus and anti0spam software freely available.

    One possible answer is that the current situation with multiple competing software makers maximising the chances of stopping new viruses and minimises the potential damage from any fault in a particular program.

Comments are closed.