Apparently Channel Four in the UK has put out a program which, with admirable honesty entitles itself The Great Global Warming Swindle, and offers the same tired set of swindlers we’ve heard for fifteen years or more, although their site breathlessly proclaims
But just as the environmental lobby think they’ve got our attention, a group of naysayers have emerged to slay the whole premise of global warming.
Particularly amusing for those of us who follow these things is the linkup between the US right, represented by Fred Singer, Patrick Michaels and others, and the Revolutionary Communist Party/LM crew at Spiked who put the whole thing together.* George Marshall (no relation to the George C Marshall Institute, which in turn bears no relation to George C Marshall, the soldier and statesman whose name it shamelessly ripped off) details names, track records of and (an incomplete list of) cash payments received by the participants.
*For those who like to keep track of the links between various forms of delusionism, this is the same group that denied ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.
John Quiggin 
MES95, Majorajam
I used an example earlier, To try an demonstrate just how little knowledge we have.
“Let me give you an example, there are around 5 million known chemical substances known to man, of which around 7000 have been tested and of those around 30 have been shown as being carcinogenic to humans, so take a piece of A4 paper, put a dot in the top corner with a sharp pencil, and draw a small 3mm box at the bottom, the dot is what is carcinogenic, the box is what we have tested, the REST (of your sheet)IS THE UNKNOWN.”
Now I cannot tell you what the sum total of knowledge required to give a full understanding of climate, but even as a layman i can probably put together around 200 plus questions about the issue I would wish to be answered, so my guess is that we probably only have around 33% of the total picture, so using the IPCC formulation, they are saying they are 90% certain based on a THIRD of the facts that need to be known and understood fully. NOW once again I am not saying that is wrong, what I am saying it is risky. As dony Runsfeld would neatly put it “the known unknowns”
Lets take just one of many parts of the argument, troposphere temperatures, Moonbat the other day in the Guardian rightly pointed to 2 pieces of research contradicting the line in TGGWS, 1 was a new way of measuring the trop, with microwaves the other a new way of looking at the numbers, NOW both might turn out right, BUT the majority of the body of evidence says otherwise, what he is doing is pick and mix science (like everyone else on both sides is doing in the argument) and selecting the evidence based upon the paradigm they support. The reason this is happened is because there is big holes in our overall understanding. As proven with the many computer models trying to calibrate 10s of 100s of variables. Then using Cluster sampling which only works when you have the correct info in the system in the first place otherwise it is unless, thus it comes back to what do we really know.
One physicists told me there are 2 main problems with regards to climate science, 1, scientists from other areas of science don’t like to comment on others work as a general rule 2, climate science is a new field thus not enough people yet within the ranks who will challenge orthodoxy. I think he is right. so in essence it is a bit of a closed shop.
“Also, I’ve done some analysis that suggests that Kyoto will increase economic activity. Do me a favor and falsify that.”
You make my point for me, How can I falsify your analysis if I don’t know what your analysis is? That would be trying to make a informed judgment on very little information, which in this case NONE at all.
Not sure about the point you are making with regards to the price of energy, other than to say the 70s gave a good indication as to the importance of energy prices and the knock on effect in the wider economy.
As regards Kyoto in general, artificial targets and supposed carbon trading are all fine and dandy at the UN IPPC jamborees (next one is in Bali of all places, good sun and beaches i should imagine) but they don’t work in the the real world, thats why i pointed to the US clean air act.
As ive tried to point out Mitigation is pure politics, adaptation is and has always been the name of the game.
just one example.
http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn11390-catalyst-could-help-turn-cosub2sub-into-fuel.html
And you should start working on the delusion that all policy can be reduced to its effect on such asinine criteria as the ‘size of government’ (perhaps even start by defining the term). The fact that you would apply such a consideration to a discussion about global warming speaks volumes of your level of understanding of economics and the issue at hand. All of which is largely perfunctory. You are, after all, a libertarian.
Gee Majorajam, if worrying about the size of government is asinine, what is equating libertarianism to belief in the tooth fairy?
But in answer to your question, a good starting definition for the size of government is the total tax take as a percentage of GDP.
Sean,
The uncertainty is indeed profound, but it is either disingenuous or under-informed to suggest that climate science is somehow uniquely afflicted (and that therefore that we should throw up our hands ‘until we know for sure’- an argument akin to refusing to get out of bed in the morning until we understand the meaning of life). For example, the field of medicine is also chalked full of uncertainty, but I’m not aware that it keeps people from seeking out treatment.
So, there are two points to be made here. The first is that no one is arguing that uncertainty doesn’t exist, but that is not the same thing as saying that evidence doesn’t exist. On the contrary, evidence of human caused warming and of the greenhouse effect does exist, and it is compelling. The second point is that, in this case, uncertainty is an argument for, not against action.
Allow me to use terms you may be familiar with, “We cannot let the smoking gun be the sudden collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctica ice sheets, weakening or even reversal of thermohaline circulations that might strongly affect the Gulf Stream, runaway amplification of global warming due to the many potential reinforcing feedbacks (including, but not limited to, loss of polar albedo and rapid releases of methane from arctic permafrost), or other non-reversible and cataclysmic effects on the climate”.
That statement, which recalls longingly some other far less informed scare-mongering, is over the top, but succinct in its own happy way. Have a think.
As to the issue with the price of energy, I agree that the 70’s gave a good example of the effect on economic growth- it was faster than either the 1980s or 1990s globally. I guess that you’re working off a different definition of bankruptcy is different than am I.
That’s great lib. Then Kyoto implemented via cap and trade has zero effect on the size of government. Is it fair then to presume you are a supporter?
Majorajam: I agree with everything you ever said and will say.
Richard, thanks for those useful links. We’ve obviously got a lot of disagreements remaining, but at least it appears we can agree on the points that uncertainty implies a more precautionary approach, and that the Durkin programme was a swindle.
Majorajam, if I really did adhere to such a one-dimensional philosophy as you suppose, then yes, I’d be a supporter.
But given Kyoto will make precious little impact on GW and given the scientific uncertainties, no, I am not a supporter.
I fail to see the point of hobbling the “developed” nations so the developing countries can continue to emit CO2. I put “developed” in scare quotes because it is a misnomer: we’re all developing nations – some of us are just more advanced than others.
Lib, I have to say I am impressed that the scientific uncertainties are not so problematic as to rule out Kyoto as having an influence on the climate. Were that landing planes on aircraft carriers was so precise.
As you can see by the effect on global economic growth of the series of energy shocks of the 1970s- i.e. that it was substantially higher than it has been since- clearly the cost of preventative measures of any kind against risks that the overwhelming majority of the relevant scientific community would agree are real are beyond the pale. The fact that California has managed to remain so prosperous over the last 15 years without increasing its carbon footprint is another cautionary tale in this regard. Good thing too because I was beginning to fear a cogent story couldn’t be assembled out of the denialist camp.
We can agree on one thing though: some of us are more advanced than others.
Ok Maj, let’s pick something we can measure: what has been the impact to date of Kyoto on CO2 levels?
And California’s prosperity is the exception that proves the rule: its prosperity is largely due to its unique status as the global engine-room of technological innovation.
I tell you what, I’ll support Kyoto if you can demonstrate how to create California-equivalents outside California.
#107 I would even say that Durkin is a greater swindler than Gore and Stern put together.
Msg 104,
I did not say we should not make decisions or policy, I said we have to be aware of the limitations of our knowledge when making such decisions, as for the precautionary principle thats a bit like a guy going to hospital after a punch up and instead of treating the guy they try to teach him how to avoid punches, once again problems will arise, problems are soluble. uncertainty is the basis of bad decisions, and NO I don’t find the case compelling.
I think you could travel back in time (and to the future) and find plenty of reasons to be fearful, we live and have always lived on a hostile planet in a hostile universe, you just need to get used to it, its called RISK.
At a 7% warming the Greenland ice sheet will take around a 1000 years to thaw and produce a 7 metre rise in sea waters (against various rise and falls in natural land movements) bearing in mind Holland is already 7mts below sea level, that does not make me lay awake at night, its soluble by adaptation.
How about a bet, i bet in the 5 years (07/08/09/10//11/) will produce 1 or 0 years hotter than 1998 (2 or more, which is what I think you seem to think should happen, and you win the bet)
As for economic growth, economics was never a science :0)
I did not know Claude Allègre, had moved into the skeptics ranks! hes the guy who first warned about co2 i belive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Is California the global engine room of technological innovation? I was under the impression that many of the lucrative military development jobs were gone; that many other countries were engaging in research and development; that in fact universities in other states were doing lots of work at all.
Can you explain what exactly is in CA doing all this work?
An exception, huh? Should’ve guessed- libertarianism wouldn’t exist but for exceptions. I would’ve thought an entire decade of growth data would be difficult to except, but I would’ve underestimated the faith libertarians can vest in their paradigm. In any case, if you want to ‘know how to create California equivalents’ you should read Tom Friedman- that’s his bag, not mine.
I’m just arguing that reducing CO2 emissions, while not cost free, can be (and, in fact, has been) achievable with both significant demographic and economic growth, and I have plenty of evidence to back me up, (all of which, by the way, is without considering how many of our petrodollars end up financing the weapons and training of our purported enemies, but that is another story entirely).
As regards Kyoto, you will have to decide whether it will bankrupt us or not reduce C02. You can’t have it both ways.
CA is headquarters to a (hugely) disproportionate number of the most successful technology companies, and receives a (hugely) disproportionate percentage of global venture capital investment in technology (particularly electronics, software, internet, nanotech, biotech, etc).
Other places are doing a lot of research to be sure, but in terms of economic impact, nowhere else comes close to CA.
So Maj, you agree CA is an exception.
There have been many attempts to replicate Silicon Valley, none of which have been remotely as successful.
I’d love to see your argument for double-digit Chinese growth over the next decade whilst maintaining a constant carbon footprint.
Again, what matters with Kyoto is its real impact, which I note you are studiously avoiding addressing.
Sean,
I’ve just pointed out to you that statements you made were wildly off the mark and you’ve dismissed that with a joke and moved on. This is but one commonality in the people who take your point of view.
Moving on to some of the others, pointing out that people make better decisions when they are informed doesn’t really add a lot here. You see, we don’t have a choice about the level of certainty of the ramifications of our actions before we act, especially in that by ‘act’ I also mean acts of omission- which is what I presume you would have the world do. After all, we can always build the dikes higher. Never mind that the temperature changs we’re talking about have the potential to be larger than what separates us from previous ice ages, all related issues will be ‘soluble’- apparently, uncertainty regarding climate disappears when it comes to adapting to increased temperatures.
All of which makes me tired all over. A sign should hang over this blog- debunk all the cavalier delusions you like, we’ll make more.
Richard T as with creationists just because you play the person doesn’t automatically make it a fallcy sometimes it can be appropriate. Creationists on evolution, libertarians on the environment, denialists on GW. 😉
Sean has already set his mind, -probably like yourself 😉 he like a person who’s doctor has told him to give up smoking but hey science is never 100% certain, no matter that he get’s second opinions they all say the same, not only that since he is so special we had the world’s best medical minds and institutes look into it as a matter of global importance and still that is not good enough. Plus what is the point of talking economic policy sicen it was never a science anyway. But hey techno fixes will overcome 600 new coal power stations coming online between now and 2030 don’t you worry about that!
Observa who said anything about wrenching, how about the brake and usual starting to ease on brake isn’t suddenly pulling the hand brake, over the top as usual.
Actually lib, that was an ironic barb aimed at an inane line of argument that exempts inconvenient parts of the data on the basis of tedious narratives. You were asking a question I hope?
I’ll be happy to discuss Kyoto, once you decide what your position is on it. Will it bankrupt us or not reduce CO2 any? And speaking of studious avoidance, what’s your position on why the world experienced faster economic growth in the 70’s than the 80’s and 90’s??
I think Kyoto will neither bankrupt us nor result in zero CO2 reduction. Now, tell me how much CO2 has been reduced by Kyoto to date.
If you give me a reference for your economic growth claim, I’ll try to answer your question.
Lib you do know that Kyoto was never meant to be the solution in itself?
Secondly you have no bar of the position it took that since developed nations caused the problem they should morally speaking be the ones to take the first steps until a mechanism is created to allow developing nations to develop in a sustainable way?
Sure, but the question is still reasonable: how much has Kyoto reduced CO2 to date?
And no, I don’t see that the more-developed nations have a moral debt to the less-developed nations. If anything it is the reverse: the only reason the less-developed nations are able to develop so rapidly is because of the massive technological transfer taking place.
“Sure, but the question is still reasonable: how much has Kyoto reduced CO2 to date?”
Well the obvious reference point is how much carbon dioxide emissions have risen in the two countries that signed Kyoto but then chose not to ratify it – Australia and the US.
Work out what the current emissions from the ratifying nations are, work out what it would be if their emissions had grown at the same rate as Australia and the US. Deduct one from the other and you have a first cut approximation of the impact to date.
That will probably overestimate the impact of Kyoto. Australia’s emissions grow disproportionately with China’s growth due to our energy-intensive exports to China.
You need to compare like economies, or at least come up with a model of CO2 emissions as a function of the structure of a nation’s economy.
Richard, thanks for these useful links. Obviously there’s plenty we disagree on, but at least we agree on Durkin and (I think) on the proposition that uncertainty strengthens the case for action on GW.
Lib I suppose you could frame it that way, apart from the fact that many of the developed nations had to exploit the people and resources of devloping nations to be able to develop in the first place they could happily use dated technology and also use the atmosphere as a free dump and slowy develop and still get an improved living standard over what they currently have.
No moral obligation there either way. Oh it looks like China is doing that with coal fired power stations and their coal reserves.
This quote by a BBC journo(from Tim Blairs) seems quite relevant to the GW embracers vs non-embracers generally, if you get the drift-
“I find myself torn by Venezuela – its economic experiment seems to me utterly doomed, and yet at the same time, wonderfully noble.”
Perhaps it all comes down to whether feeling noble about things like Kyoto, signing Pledges and changing light globes, outweighs the sense of futility of it all, or not, as the case may be.
No observa, it comes down to a critical mass of synapses firing off in your cortex. Some have it, others are wanting. But whatever makes you sleep better. And while I’m on the subject, I should note that Tim Blair’s blog is so full of intellectual giants that they have to ban dissenting opinion, presumably to keep the faithful from eating their keyboards in frustration, their not being capable of dealing otherwise.
Lib, the source is the IMF both by PPP and FX. As for Kyoto, there is as it appears has started to come out, no definitive way to back out its heretofore effect on emissions. It is most accurate to go to the source- i.e. what mechanisms have been put in place as a result, and what their net effect has been- as other forms of extrapolation are bound to be egregiously misleading.
Ultimately, Kyoto is just a specific implementation of policy, which can be changed as and how nations see fit. There have been other approaches, notably a number of unilateral initiatives. In any case, as Simonjm pointed out, Kyoto was meant as a place to start to tackle the prickly issue of collective responsibility. I don’t know anyone who is foolish enough to believe that all countries will at some point pull their weight, but then I’ve had group projects in school and understand that such obstacles are not insurmountable.
Maj, “the source is the IMF” is not much of a reference. Can you point me to a specific publication, preferably online?
So Kyoto’s effects are unmeasurable. Forgive me (and my synaptically deficient cortex) for concluding that it is yet another bureaucratic boondoggle.
Yes t’is noble but ultimately pointless to expect people to pay the real cost of the pollution they create, make money by being more efficient with energy: insulate their homes, use CF lights, turn lights and their standby’s off, walk to the store use a bike, use passive heating and cooling, create their own energy to sell back to the grid, fly less, by local food, pay a bit more for energy, create new jobs offset any carbon once they’ve made an effort to reduce their footprints by paying a little bit more can –forget the trees- that can go to developing nations to help them raise their living standards and avoid the polluting tech we used to get ahead.
.
Hey if I want to drive a SUV or have TV’s going in every room in the house, no damn dirt poor Chinese or Bangladeshi has the moral right to expect any consideration from me.
Let them get off their collective asses and pollute like the 1st world.
Opps sorry on second thought they can only pollute I they pay us not to pollute, and let’s give them one TV and air conditioner per village and they can car share and I’ll give up the TV in the bathroom and only drive my SUV during daylight hours.
Fairs fair.
That’s sweet- you want a link? Pardon me if I don’t bounce to. The IMF is an acronym for the “International Monetary Fund”. They keep economic statistics. If you are truly interested you can move your libertarian mass and go find it. I think you’ll find however that any source for this economic series will show the same thing- it’s not as though the numbers are close.
As for forgiveness you’re going to have to look elsewhere. I’m generally unsympathetic to intellectual laziness and ignoring the difference between ‘difficult to measure’ and immeasurable, not to mention the difference between immeasurable and non-existent, definitely qualifies. Ignoring such significant distinctions to say nothing of the substance of a post may work in your libertarian book club, but not with me.
Alternatively, we can all emit as much CO2 as we want on the road to far greater wealth and technological sophistication.
If and when we are certain CO2 is a big problem (in about 50-100 years), the entire world (except large chunks of Africa) will be “developed”, and we’ll have 10-100 times the capacity to deal with the problem.
Maj, in my western intellectual tradition the onus is usually on the folks making the claims to provide a source. ’tis you who are the lazy one, my friend.
As for the semantics of measurability, ’twas you who answered my question as to the effect on CO2 of Kyoto with “there is … no definitive way to back out its heretofore effect on emissions”. Correct me if I am wrong (and again, I’m running this all serially on my one remaining synapse, so please be gentle – no big words now), but “unmeasurable” seems to be as good a one-word summary as any of your statement. It neither claims nor implies the effect is “non-existent”.
You’ll find most bureaucracies are very fond of policies with unmeasurable effects, hence my reference to bureaucratic boondoggle.
First I don’t smoke, even if smoking was good for you I would not, it all looks a bit stupid to me.
I also note with interest that people making claims as to “certain” models and theories are not that bothered about putting their money where there mouths are, I would have thought that science was a discipline about making predictions as to future events
What I would really like to see in all this, is a Iowas electronic markets type system for people to back up their claims with cash and reputation instead of the abuse of the peer review system.
Anyway folks I have a plane to catch, such is the climate criminal that I am, you see there is not enough sun in this part of the world at this time of year and its going to snow this weekend (brrrr) so ill be popping over to the Caribbean for a little R&R.
CONCLUSION
observations indicate that since 1979 the troposphere has warmed at a rate that is significantly slower than the rate of surface warming. (AGW theory says it should warm quicker)
The climate science incorporated into climate models indicates that if CO2 emissions of greenhouse gases are the cause of the warming observed during the second half of the 20th century, the troposphere should have warmed at a faster rate than the surface.
This disparity between observations and climate model models calls into question the validity of both the models and their projections of future climate.
In short case not proven.
“Alternatively, we can all emit as much CO2 as we want on the road to far greater wealth and technological sophistication.
If and when we are certain CO2 is a big problem (in about 50-100 years), the entire world (except large chunks of Africa) will be “developedâ€?, and we’ll have 10-100 times the capacity to deal with the problem.”
And in 50-100 years time your intellectual heirs will be arguing for another 50-100 year deferral on the same basis.
Unless the impact of global warming is sufficient to prevent your blandly Utopian vision of endless wealth from happening, in which case your intellectual heirs will probably be hanging from lamp-posts.
Just to add to 135
Spencer and Christy are generally acknowledged as the leaders in their field, and they don’t think that the warming (even after correction of the observations to fit with model data, which is not normal science practice) is anywhere near the modelled values (which should exceed surface warming). btw, the warming that we are looking for is the troposphere above the equator.
bye folks
This should not escape your attention!
GET THIS FOR POSTMODERNIST CLAP TRAP .
Mike Hulme, professor in the school of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia and the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
writing in the Guardian.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html
>>This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence.>Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for contemporary conditions. The typical case is when “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”. In such circumstances, we have an inversion of the traditional distinction between hard, objective scientific facts, and soft subjective values. Now we have value-driven policy decisions that are ‘hard’ in various ways, for which the scientific inputs are irremediably ‘soft’.>Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking
SORRY SOME FORMATING ISSUE WITH THIS BLOG, GET A PREVIEW ASAP PLZ.
This should not escape your attention!
GET THIS FOR POSTMODERNIST CLAP TRAP .
Mike Hulme, professor in the school of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia and the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
writing in the Guardian.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032821,00.html
“This is the wrong question to ask of science. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognizes the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence.”
get that bit? post-normal science!!!, what the F*** is that!!
“Post-Normal Science is a concept developed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry that is appropriate for contemporary conditions. The typical case is when “facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent”. In such circumstances, we have an inversion of the traditional distinction between hard, objective scientific facts, and soft subjective values. Now we have value-driven policy decisions that are ‘hard’ in various ways, for which the scientific inputs are irremediably ‘soft’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
As I life and breath, what a shocking admission that the “science” supporting AGW is anything but settled and supported by data, we find that post-modernist thinking and ideology is at its root.
I leave with the same message as i started, In science you play the ball not the man (yes mr prof sir, that really does apply to you too) and everyone needs as an urgent requirement to read and re-read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Scientific_Discovery
The quote of the century so far…
“Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking”
Sean: Post-normal science was so dubbed by Funtowicz and Ravetz. The term “normal science” (that is, science that is not in a paradigm shift) was coined by Thomas Kuhn. In his intro, he says “this applies to the natural sciences only”. Funtowicz and Ravetz “discovered” that environmental problems span both the natural and social sciences and that therefore Kuhn’s description of “normal” does not apply. So, they coined “post-normal”.
The unfortunate naming aside, Funtowicz and Ravetz do make clear that, in environmental research, facts and values mix (look no further than this blog) and that ivory towery academic procedures are not sufficient — they also make a series of sensible suggestions.
Unfortunately, under the cloak of post-normal science, a number of natural scientists are now dabbling in the social sciences and making a pig’s ear of it (look no further than Hulme’s Tyndall Centre) — post-normal science is increasingly a guise for “anything goes”.
Previously, I argued that social scientists are better at the distinction between fact and value — but John Q is a clear counterexample, starting with the ideologically inspired conclusion and moulding the theory and data to fit the result.
Lib, in case you hadn’t noticed, the ‘western’ intellectual tradition- whoop de doo- is typically carried out in more formal arena than casual blogs. That said, were I writing a paper that required such esoteric statistics as world gdp growth, what I’ve already given you would be sufficient to serve as citation. If you choose to continue to duck the numbers because they don’t fit your world view, your ignorance is not my problem.
Happy to see you were able to reduce Kyoto to an issue of bureaucracies. The notion clearly circumscribes your comfort zone. You should know though that ‘not measurable’ is not the same thing as ‘no definitive way to measure’. If you doubt that, you can use a dictionary to look up the word ‘definitive’. I assure you it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does. If pointing this fact out to you is insufficient short of a link, just claim victory and move on. Arguing with you is like getting a lobotomy with a rusty spoon.
No boom boom Tol brother,
Speaking of Kuhn, I have no doubt he’d agree that social scientists are peerless in their skill of separating fact from value- in all probability going so far as to hold yourself out as a quintessential example. It’s all those other scientists whose work is more a product of human idiosyncrasy than they know…
Maj: “That said, were I writing a paper that required such esoteric statistics as world gdp growth, what I’ve already given you would be sufficient to serve as citation.”
So far you’ve given us: “the 70’s gave a good example of the effect on economic growth- it was faster than either the 1980s or 1990s globally [source IMF]” and challenged me to explain this.
If that is a sufficient citation where you publish, well, need I say more?
Ian Gould: “And in 50-100 years time your intellectual heirs will be arguing for another 50-100 year deferral on the same basis.”
And why not, if everything is still looking peachy?
“And why not, if everything is still looking peachy?”
Well for starters everything isn’t “looking peachy” now except to a handful of ideologues.
“observations indicate that since 1979 the troposphere has warmed at a rate that is significantly slower than the rate of surface warming.”
Not true. Radiosonde long term trend measurements have been corrected and show that the troposhere warms faster than the surface in the tropics and about the same as the surface elsewhere. Refer to The tropical lapse rate quandary.
“The climate science incorporated into climate models indicates that if CO2 emissions of greenhouse gases are the cause of the warming observed during the second half of the 20th century, the troposphere should have warmed at a faster rate than the surface.”
Thermodynamics dictates that the tropical troposphere should have warmed at a faster rate than the surface regardless of the cause of the warming. Computer models are not needed to show this, just thermodynamics.
“Spencer and Christy are generally acknowledged as the leaders in their field”
Before you put a lot of faith in Spencer and Christy’s derivations from satellite measurements, have a look at their Revision history file. The lack of stability in their derivations doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence.
No lib, you most certainly needn’t say more. What you should do is go over to the IMF website where you should be able to obtain and verify their global growth estimates in a matter of minutes. You should then seize that opportunity to remove your head from your colon, surgically if necessary, and with eyes unvarnished attempt to reconcile that data with your preconceived and hopelessly dull worldview.
As regards the wait 100 years until we’re all rich schtick, for having deduced the maximally efficient capital allocation for this problem in a mere two sentences, (not to mention two that could easily be mistook as the ramblings of a simpleton), you ought to have Tol nominate you for the big one. That’s a bigger upset than Greece in 04 (neigh, Greece in 480bc).
On the plus side, I’m darn proud of you for managing to locate a dictionary. One small step yes, but one giant leap for libertarianism.
Maj, I couldn’t care less about your claim, but the onus is on you to produce a concrete reference. Responding with insults only serves to reinforce the impression that you don’t have one.
As for optimal capital allocation – we seem to be doing pretty well letting the people who are best at making money get on with it. God forbid we let people like you do it.
“we seem to be doing pretty well letting the people who are best at making money get on with it”
funny I thought the usual libertarian line was that the conemporary world was a neo-Stalinist hell-hole in which the vast wealth-creating power of the free market was constantly being held back by the oppressive sate?
lib, I could care less about your ignorance, but the onus is on you to be aware of the empirical evidence before you make wild claims regarding the effect of fossil fuel rationing on economic growth. I have generously assisted you in this regard first by making, ‘my claim’, i.e. drawing attention to some of the evidence, and second by providing, in response to your request, a source for the data, (and one which also happens to have a very easy to use web site together with download to excel functionality where you can verify it- not to mention, find out all manner of other nifty information if you can muster the gumption). If after all that you still refuse to leave the familiar serenity of your own fundament, there’s little more I can be expected to do.
As regards optimal capital allocation, you should know that you attested to one just a few posts ago. However, given that it now appears you were unawares of having done so at the time, I’m thinking you’d be have to pretty lucky for it to end up being optimal. Say goodbye to the Nobel. Also fyi, this just in, private capital markets aren’t particularly inclined to allocate capital to public goods- it makes it rather difficult to turn a profit. This remarkably remedial principle will serve as a decent place to start your education if choose to at some point learn how to speak intelligently on this or any other economic subject.
Ian, except for the neo-Stalinist hell-hole bit, that’s pretty much spot-on.
I guess I should have said we don’t need yet more central-planners like Majorajam.