Better stay in Bali, boys, it's cold up here!
As Northern Hemisphere snow cover exceeds the 10-year seasonal average, another backlash against the Carbocollectivists' claims of consensus has been compiled, featuring more than 400 scientists, not all of whom, surely, can be secretly working for Exxon.
Comments (51)
Daniel M. Ryan
I have a habit of letting my mind drift to intellectual subjects as I apply shovel to snow, so the snow I shoveled for approximately six hours last Sunday hasn't induced any pithy, if pungent, comments that would amplify Mr. Corrigan's point.
Published: December 21, 2007 7:17 AM
jeffrey
I hope everyone clicks the link and has a look. Very impressive indeed!
Published: December 21, 2007 8:27 AM
Dennis
Those who do not work for conventional energy companies are either ignorant, or mentally disturbed and should be institutionalized.
Published: December 21, 2007 8:54 AM
David Bratton
There should be an annual award for the most egregious case of falsifying science for political purposes. Call it the "Lysenko Prize". And of course, Algore would have to be the first recipient.
Published: December 21, 2007 9:02 AM
Dennis
I believe my previous comment would be clearer if it is revised to the following:
Regarding the over 400 scientists mentioned in the report, those who are not working for conventional energy companies are either ignorant, or mentally disturbed and should be institutionalized.
Published: December 21, 2007 9:34 AM
David Spellman
I believe my previous comment would be clearer if it is revised to the following:
Regarding the over 400 scientists mentioned in the report, those who are not working for conventional energy companies are either ignorant, or mentally disturbed and should be institutionalized.
Ad hominem attacks are usually the last resort of those who have been proven wrong and can't accept the truth. The instructions for the blog were quite simple: Post an intelligent and civil comment. If we can't meet the first requirement, let's at least meet the second.
Published: December 21, 2007 9:46 AM
Yancey Ward
The alarmists have been very clever- every weather event outside norms (whatever norms you wish to use) are evidence of global warming. It is hot, gotta be global warming; it is dry, is caused by global warming, wet, cold, snowy, windy, stormy, calm, all caused by global warming. Earthquakes are next.
Published: December 21, 2007 9:59 AM
Robert M.
Didn't they try to blame that huge tsunami on global warming? I remember that hearing someone did.
David:
I took Dennis's comment to be a joke...because the media labels any dissenter as a lunatic...perhaps I was wrong in assuming that.
Published: December 21, 2007 10:07 AM
newson
to david spellman:
dennis was using irony. it's a form of humour quite widely used here in australia - quite a plus when examining the climate-change debate. we've got the religion big-time here, too.
as for this being the worm turning, i'm convinced that only a very steep recession will bring the costs of mitigation into focus. i don't think the argument is going to be won/lost on purely scientific merits.
Published: December 21, 2007 10:32 AM
Dennis
David,
I was trying to be ironic, and I take no offense in your comment. Misunderstandings do occur.
I also was attempting to make a veiled reference to one method used by the Soviets to treat dissenters.
Published: December 21, 2007 11:15 AM
Yancey Ward
Irony is facing imminent extinction! We must stop global warming now, or we will lose all species of satire.
Published: December 21, 2007 11:37 AM
Ron
Even worse, Yancey, the State may feel it necessary to suppress irony in order to protect us from the threat of global warming...or terrorists, imported goods, unsafe drugs, toys tainted by lead paint, etc., ad nauseam.
Published: December 21, 2007 11:52 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
"Ad hominem attacks are usually the last resort of those who have been proven wrong and can't accept the truth. The instructions for the blog were quite simple: Post an intelligent and civil comment. If we can't meet the first requirement, let's at least meet the second."
Shouldn't environmentalists be held to the same exacting standards though? In which case, bringing up the source of a scientist's funding as one's sole argument against his substantive claims amounts to ad hominem. But this is one of the most common tactics of alarmists.
Published: December 21, 2007 12:08 PM
Ty
Some people just need a cause. Gore is a 'progressive' and has found his prohibition.
Published: December 21, 2007 12:29 PM
Brent
>Some people just need a cause. Gore is a 'progressive' and has found his prohibition.
Couldn't agree more.
Published: December 21, 2007 1:06 PM
Mr.huh?
"Didn't they try to blame that huge tsunami on global warming? I remember that hearing someone did."
Don't forget about those California wildfires. It's not like those were caused by State ownership of the lands and environmental regulation of them as well. No it was global warming. Seriously though, the satire from Dennis was great. I though it was real at first too, but then realized that it must have been satire since he was implying that those scientists from Harvard for example were "insane" since they automatically didn't work for the oil-companies. The link is great as well. I'm thinking about printing the whole document and posting it onto the bulletin board of the local "progressive" club at my university.
Published: December 21, 2007 1:39 PM
G
I think these comments, while interesting, miss the point. Prediction markets are the proper method of predicting things like future global temperatures. The opinions of 400 scientists mean nothing to me if they are not willing to put their money where their mouth is.
Published: December 21, 2007 2:36 PM
Jim
One year's snowfall record does nothing to help prove or disprove the theory of global climate change. Don't spit on the science because you don't agree with it, but argue it.
And this comment is from someone who is very skeptical about the extent of change in current climate models.
Published: December 21, 2007 4:22 PM
newson
g states:
"Prediction markets are the proper method of predicting things like future global temperatures. The opinions of 400 scientists mean nothing to me if they are not willing to put their money where their mouth is."
prediction markets have already spoken - chart the price of waterfront property relative to inland property in any first world nation. (any cheap docklands lots, or bargain palazzi along il canale grande? 'don't think so!)
the smart money hasn't followed the "apocalypto" script.
to jim, who says:
"One year's snowfall record does nothing to help prove or disprove the theory of global climate change. Don't spit on the science because you don't agree with it, but argue it."
the onus to prove the C02-climate-change model is on those militating for massive economic/lifestyle changes. in the interim, many like myself remain agnostic and underwhelmed by what seems a science in its infancy. refering to one year's snowfall is purely a way of illustrating the nature's complexity (or randomness), not captured by today's models. consider how little is really understood about lightning.
Published: December 21, 2007 5:57 PM
William H. Stoddard
the onus to prove the C02-climate-change model is on those militating for massive economic/lifestyle changes. in the interim, many like myself remain agnostic and underwhelmed by what seems a science in its infancy.
The famous "precautionary principle," of course, says the reverse: if there is any chance that the fears of global warming believers are true, then the consequences would be so dreadful that we must take drastic action, rather than demanding proof or even the weight of evidence.
That argument bothered me for a while. Then I pinned down where I had seen it before: in Pascal's Wager, one of the most famous arguments in theology. In brief summary, it says that if God does exist, and you worship him, you'll go to heaven, but if you don't, you'll go to hell; if he doesn't exist, you'll die and that will be it—so if there's even a small chance of God's existing, the infinite payoff says that you should treat his existence as established. The global warming believers have managed to reinvent Pascal's Wager. I didn't think it was a sound argument the first time around, either—but beyond that, it makes some forms of the global warming argument look more like religion than science.
Published: December 21, 2007 8:20 PM
newson
william h stoddard:
The famous "precautionary principle," of course, says the reverse: if there is any chance that the fears of global warming believers are true, then the consequences would be so dreadful that we must take drastic action, rather than demanding proof or even the weight of evidence.
yeah, i've heard this chorus-line before too. too cute by half. every time this line gets trotted out i think of prostate cancer. kills millions of men each year, and one of the drastic treatments is castration! i somehow doubt many men would adopt the precautionary principle to avoid even a faint possibility of this pathology. the same argument could be applied to prophylactic mastectomy.
Published: December 22, 2007 6:08 AM
Christian
The Gore camp is already claiming that 200-300 of these scientists are "connected" with Exxon. Of course, that is enough to discredit anything they say. However, if we stick with their argument, would that be enough to discredit anything Gore says based on his connections with environmental groups? Or what about scientists who benefit from their research on global warming?
By the way, I looked into some of the web sites that were criticizing scientists who are skeptical of global warming. First of all, the fact
that they are skeptical is usually used as an attack on their integrity. Second, several of these web pages were just vulgar, open attempts at character assassination. Thirdly, and I think most interestingly was that among the better sites, they were claiming that some of these scientists may have ties to a lobbying group that received over $470,00 in funding from Exxon. Compare that with the $12 billion spent in FY 2004 by 12 Government agencies on climate change sciences.
(I will not not post links to some of the sites as I do not want to be responsible for giving them traffic)
http://www.desmogblog.com/denier_database
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05338r.pdf
Published: December 22, 2007 7:37 AM
Christian
Oh yeah, that 470,000 was over the course of 7 years.
It occurs to me that none of this really matters anyway. As usual, governments are getting involved and therefore there is some serious power up for grabs. The guys who brought us the post office, America's wonderful public schools, the DMV, a well-funded government retirement and health care plan, and the war in Iraq, are now going to save the planet through legislation. Wow.
Published: December 22, 2007 7:43 AM
Nick
Trying to stop polluting is important.
Having clean air, water, and soil is important.
Certainly combustion engines (cars) emit pollution.
Do we need to argue about trying to limit pollution? Doesn't that make sense?
Why do we need to frame our discussion around Global Warming; whether it is man made, from cows, or a natural cycle?
Let's all agree on the basics; less pollution is better.
Nick
Published: December 22, 2007 8:51 AM
Abel
Yeah, I think we can generally agree on that. The question is whether this can even be properly accomplished by government regulation. The recent energy bill that was passed a few days ago will ban incandescent light bulbs in a few years. They pollute because of all the CO2 put out by the coal power plants right? But what are the alternatives? Basically fluorescents. But fluorescents contain mercury along with other chemicals. Incandescents are harmless by comparison. So, we're trading tons and tons of mercury in our landfills for a bit less CO2 in the air. Great.
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
Published: December 22, 2007 10:19 AM
Dennis
While I do not speak for Mr. Corrigan, I believe the point of his post was not current snow cover, but rather that apparently notable opposition to the AGW consensus exists.
In addition, the below quote from the report should be of concern to those who value scientific truth and integrity:
"Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
'Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,' Paldor wrote."
**************************************************
Also, I do not believe that CO2 is necessarily accurately characterized as a pollutant. The carbon from CO2 is a building block used by plants in photosynthesis, the process that provides plants with food and is ultimately responsible for feeding all life on earth. CO2 can just as, if not more, accurately be labeled a fertilizer.
Finally, given that the science behind AGW is questionable and the notably less than forthright methods used by some supporters of AGW to suppress criticism of the consensus view, limiting increases in CO2, especially when the effect on atmospheric temperature is logarithmic (and not linear), does not make sense to me.
Published: December 22, 2007 4:42 PM
86thefed
Human beings are impacting the Earth and have been for thousands of years. In the past 150 years that impact has increased.
To say beyond the shadow of a doubt that humans are causing global warming and then trying slide a global carbon tax to be enforced by the U. N. Police says one thing to me: "Globalism" or "One World Government" or a "New World Order".
Published: December 22, 2007 6:40 PM
TokyoTom
Irony is facing imminent extinction! We must stop global warming now, or we will lose all species of satire.
naw, Yancey, don't let the enviros, carbophobic socialists, green Salemites and "watermelons" get you down - a very healthy streak of satire, irony and good humor on this topic has long been in evidence on this blog. It's why I keep coming back, after all.
My own small contribution to the holiday snark is here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx
Published: December 23, 2007 3:12 AM
TokyoTom
Wow, "400 scientists", claims Republican Sen. Inhofe. A number of them keep writing letters, organized by a Canadian PR firm - acting purely in the public interest, of course: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/15/quot-heroic-quot-expert-voices-proven-wrong-on-agw-make-another-slick-cry-for-relevance-at-bali.aspx.
I have no problem with scientific disagreement, but most of the 400 have actually thrown in the towel on the scientific argument, and stepped outside of their expertise to argue policy, as the Bali letter demonstrates. The "skeptical" scientists who actually publish on climatology - Piekle, Christy, Lindzen, Spencer - all find the IPCC process valuable and share a concern about rising GHG levels.
If these 400 scientists are so convincing, it's curious that they can't seem to persuade a single significant scientific body to agree with them - all of which "scientific" organizations are clearly uninformed and corrupted the Koolaid of the GLOBAL WARMING religionists.
One wonders why the noble Sen. Inhofe doesn't ell us about ANY of these scientifically and morally corrupted institutions, which include the following, that have EXPLICITLY adopted the AGW "religion" (viz., that a major cause of observed warming is rising levels of the GHGs, particularly CO2, the rise in CO2 is largely the result of burning fossil fuels and other anthropogenic factors, if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue, and a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare):
1. the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences:
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
2. these national academies of science:
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil)
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
There are only some 13,000+ scientists in the AGU alone, but what do they know, anyway?
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/how-many-climate-scientists-are-there.html
And why should we bother to argue policy, as long as there is a shred of doubt on the science?
TT
Published: December 23, 2007 3:56 AM
newson
to tokyo tom:
for many years professor marshall (nobel laureate in medicine 2005) was pilloried by the medical establishment for daring to question the orthodoxy regarding stomach ulcers, that is they are caused by the h.pylori bacterium, and not acid (as the consensus went). eventually his theory won over skeptics, and humanity took a step forward.
it's an object lesson in the pitfalls of "democracy" in science. i think you rightly question the number of agw dissenters, but the same must apply to the supporting team, however august their names sound. what's good for the goose...
Published: December 23, 2007 5:22 AM
David Bratton
"Some people just need a cause. Gore is a 'progressive' and has found his prohibition."
And his apocalypse.
Published: December 23, 2007 9:26 AM
TokyoTom
Don't forget about those California wildfires. It's not like those were caused by State ownership of the lands and environmental regulation of them as well. No it was global warming.
Mr. Huh is another blog reader here who has a hard time of letting reality get past his preconceptions. As I noted previously:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007345.asp
"... there is a clear linkage between the record wildfires seasons recently and climate change, including in SoCal. In most forested areas, warmer temps and earlier snow melt have lengthened the fire season by more than two months. Accumulation due to fire suppression in some areas is a problem, but that is not what is responsible for the longer, hotter and drier fire season - and clearly not for the burns now being seen in higher mountain areas where there has been no past fire firefighting. Climate change is also expected to lead to wetter weather in SoCal, which then provides for luxurious growth and alot of fuel for the fires when they come. See:
http://secure.ntsg.umt.edu/publications/2006/Run06/SRunningScienceAug18.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/940?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=swetnam&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
"And this, from the IPCC summary of impacts of climate change in North America:
"Since 1980, an average of 22,000 km2/yr has burned in U.S. wildfires, almost twice the 1920 to 1980 average of 13,000 km2/yr (Schoennagel et al., 2004). The forested area burned in the western U.S. from 1987 to 2003 is 6.7 times the area burned from 1970 to 1986 (Westerling et al., 2006). In Canada, burned area has exceeded 60,000 km2/yr three times since 1990, twice the long-term average (Stocks et al., 2002). Wildfire-burned area in the North American boreal region increased from 6,500 km2/yr in the 1960s to 29,700 km2/yr in the 1990s (Kasischke and Turetsky, 2006). Human vulnerability to wildfires has also increased, with a rising population in the wildland-urban interface. A warming climate encourages wildfires through a longer summer period that dries fuels, promoting easier ignition and faster spread (Running, 2006). Westerling et al. (2006) found that in the last three decades the wildfire season in the western U.S. has increased by 78 days, and burn durations of fires >1000 ha in area have increased from 7.5 to 37.1 days, in response to a spring-summer warming of 0.87°C. Earlier spring snowmelt has led to longer growing seasons and drought, especially at higher elevations, where the increase in wildfire activity has been greatest (Westerling et al., 2006). In Canada, warmer May to August temperatures of 0.8°C since 1970 are highly correlated with area burned (Figure 14.1c) (Gillett et al., 2004). In the south-western U.S., fire activity is correlated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) positive phases (Kitzberger et al., 2001; McKenzie et al., 2004), and higher Palmer Drought Severity Indices. Insects and diseases are a natural part of ecosystems. In forests, periodic insect epidemics kill trees over large regions, providing dead, desiccated fuels for large wildfires. These epidemics are related to aspects of insect life cycles that are climate sensitive (Williams and Liebhold, 2002).
http://www.gtp89.dial.pipex.com/14.pdf"
Fire seasons 78 days longer? Must be a figment of the imagination of those crazy enviros/AGW religionists!!
Published: December 23, 2007 12:48 PM
TokyoTom
i think you rightly question the number of agw dissenters, but the same must apply to the supporting team, however august their names sound. what's good for the goose...
newson, the problem of keeping one's mind open is one that plagues man. Your point is fair if you are talking about lay understandings of science, but much less so as to scientists themselves. As for Inhofe's "400", many are NOT scientists at all but simply have a lay understanding - like Richard Courtney, who is "an Accredited Methodist Preacher. He is a founding Member of the Christ and the Cosmos Initiative that explores the interactions of religious and scientific ideas. The Initiative started in the UK but became active in 28 countries. Richard avoids confusion about him in his scientific and religious activities by rarely citing his academic achievements, but his material science qualifications include a DipPhil (Cambridge), a BA (Open) and a Diploma (Bath). A DipPhil is not a Doctor of Philosopy, but a Diploma in Philosophy." http://rabett.blogspot.com/
But this discussion is largely a waste of time, as the above comment thread and Corrigan's ongoing posts show - Austrians are simply more rational than climate scientists and all those other Koolaid drinkers out there, so they can't possibly be right.
As I commented on another of his posts, "Sean Corrigan is right - since the climate "science" is so "toe-curlingly bad" that only mental defectives and others who cling to "polylogistic" belief structures and other logical fallacies give it any credence, the very effort itself might be simply a waste of time.
"Rather than trying to explain economics to anyone, Austrians will be far more effective in dealing with these people by remaining aloof from (and bemused by) them, comfortable in the knowledge that (i) the science can't possibly support the premise that human activity is affecting the climate, (ii) the AGW mob (largely socialists) can't be reasoned with anyway, and (iii) the 20th century shows us that there's nothing to fear from mobs anyway.
"On further reflection, it seems that Sean may be right, and that an insuperable rift lies between the mindest of rational Austrians and those who "cling to the polylogism" of AGW. Those people literally do not think according to the same logical rules and live in a different cognitive and moral universe, so communication with them is extremely difficult at best and, at worst, may be simply impossible.
"They" are polylogistic; "we" are simply right, so why waste our time?
TT
Published: December 23, 2007 1:29 PM
newson
tokyo tom, i can't see why you're annoyed that a few austrians don't follow sheepishly what the hype of the time happens to be. remember that austrians are quite often ridiculed by the economics orthodoxy for doubting the health of the economy in bubble eras. the warnings the austrians have made about all central bank engineered booms, have been met with scorn by the orthodoxy, many of whom are impeccably credentialed. (if you look at mises' archives several years back, you'll see there were reams of gloomy articles pointing to what we now see happening in sub-prime. they were marginalized in the mainstream media).
i personally think there are serious environmental issues caused by rampant consumerism, but would lay the blame at a corrupt economic system of fiat money. ironically i think a misesean world would be kinder world on the environment. china wouldn't be churning out the same number of plasma tv's and gi joe wouldn't have a new suv drawn down from his home mortgage, because the vast credit growth would never had occured.
i'm convinced that the agw train is well and truly in motion and unstoppable, but mises.org does allow a bit of venting for grumps like me.
Published: December 23, 2007 7:07 PM
JimS
TokyoTom,
All these institutions' position on GW are easily discredited: they are all tax money-funded or derive funding from environmental alarmism. . . therefore, advocacy for schemes that would give yet another excuse for new tax collection or new funding for environmental policy/reshearch is part of their jobs. It's the same deal with the Keynsian economic fallacy.
Published: December 23, 2007 10:18 PM
JimS
The rebuttal to Pascal's Wager is: what if the subject of worship is the wrong god? Regarding GW, what if the real problem humanity faces is not global warming but global cooling? or even more likely, disruption of economy by the futile attempt to control climate, thereby rendering humanity less capable of surviving naturally occuring climage cycles.
Published: December 23, 2007 10:24 PM
TokyoTom
i can't see why you're annoyed that a few austrians don't follow sheepishly what the hype of the time happens to be.
newson, I'm annoyed because many Austrians are so transparently willing to put their critical facilities on hold when provided with AGW "skeptical" views, simply because they'd prefer to "believe" that there can be no human impact on climate rather than to seriously entertain the notion that institutional changes may be needed. This is a great way of ensuring that Austrians' influence on the public debate is limited, and is more than a little disappointing.
Published: December 24, 2007 2:52 AM
TokyoTom
JimS:
Many thanks for providing a timely example of the self-parody that the discussion of climate change on this blog has become; many here have a "puncture proof" reality.
We have no need to weigh all evidence, as the facts we don't like are "easily discredited" and simply waved away. As I noted to Sean, "they" are polylogistic; "we" are simply right, so why waste our time? Rather, let' just link arms, sing Kumbaya, and hope that all those evil enviros/scientist/corporate leaders/politician/religious leaders etc. will just go away.
We don't need to persuade the AGW warmers, much less confuse ourselves by trying to understand them or argue the science with them. Let us just together click the ruby slippers, and we can all return safely to Kansas (or Oklahoma or wherever Inhofe is from).
Published: December 24, 2007 3:06 AM
Ron
TokyoTom,
From your own blog intro: "While I prefer where possible to strengthen property rights and tort law protections against pollution, rather than trying to have federal regulation for everything, I also realize that for certain cases our shared tool of government may serve productive or even essential purposes." [emphasis added]
Here is where we disagree. This is what we should be debating...not the existence of AGW. Convincing Austrians that AGW is real will not cause us to abandon our principles, the most important of which is the understanding that government intervention is always destructive of wealth, liberty, and security, and that it never achieves its stated objective. We (or at least I) are simply not willing to compromise on this point.
I, and most others here, would be more than happy to debate free market, voluntary solutions to the threat of AGW. Rather than waste time and energy trying to convince one another of the reality (or not) of AGW, our efforts would be better spent exchanging ideas about how the market can (and to some extent already have) provide solutions to these problems.
Published: December 24, 2007 10:42 AM
N. Joseph Potts
I REALLY like the idea of the Lysenko Prize and, of course, the awarding of the first one to Algore.
Outfits specializing in this area, like the Institute for Science and Public Policy, ought to establish and award this prize. And each year, the prize should the number of today's dollars that in 1900 would have been worth the same as $1 million today. A few thousand today, and falling fast.
Published: December 24, 2007 4:29 PM
Nick
G wrote
--
Prediction markets are the proper method of predicting things like future global temperatures. The opinions of 400 scientists mean nothing to me if they are not willing to put their money where their mouth is.
--
Hmm, I don't think I have read a more idiotic statement in all of 2007. Care to buy some Enron stock?
Perhaps the real estate market has imperfect information. Maybe investors anticipate a government bailout, or an early exit from the market. Or maybe they're just stupid.
Sadly, the physical world is governed by physical laws not market prices or our wishes of how things ought to be.
Published: December 24, 2007 9:32 PM
newson
to nick, who says:
"Sadly, the physical world is governed by physical laws not market prices or our wishes of how things ought to be."
yep, just that we don't understand climate well enough to take a worldwide economic haircut on the offchance.
funny you should mention enron (a criminal fraud) in relation to climate... perhaps a lapsus. in fact, the market did consign enron to the bin.
and yes, bush has announced his bailout of at least some of the sub-prime borrowers! bad guy here (apart from bush) is the federal reserve. check out the rest of mises.org for the good oil on the evils of central banking.
happy christmas!
Published: December 25, 2007 7:12 AM
Inquisitor
How delightful it is to have trolls like Nick. We should appreciate them, perhaps even incorporate a little petting zoo for them in here. Just remember not to feed them...
Published: December 25, 2007 5:44 PM
G
Nick,
Prediction markets are most certainly not perfect. However, if you are so much wiser than they, I suggest you use them to make yourself some money. That way we'll all benefit from your wisdom, and you'll be richer for it.
If you feel certain trading practices are conductive to "noise" trading which distorts price signals, may I also suggest starting your own prediction market with rules which prohibit noise traders. Again, we'd all benefit from your wisdom.
Published: December 25, 2007 6:26 PM
JimS
TokyoTom,
In case it was not obvious to you, my previous post was a parody of the typical response that globalwarmers give when they accuse non-believers of having ties to the oil industry.
As for scientific evidence, well, you did not provide any in your previous post, so there was little to rebutt. You cited a number of sources of global warming hot air, so it was only fitting to point out their intrisic financial conflict of interest. In terms of real scientific evidence, there are plenty out there against global warming. In fact, I'm old enough to remember that the primary concern of the early periods of environmentalism was a feear of devastating global cooling, back in the 1970's, which was supposed to be caused by, you guessed it, the exhaust from cars!
Published: December 25, 2007 7:09 PM
newson
to tokyo tom, who justifiably is concerned with the tragedy of the commons aspect to global pollution (co2 isn't a pollutant).
where have multilateral accords ever worked, when there are powerful incentives not to collaborate?
i'm thinking the treaty against nuclear proliferation, the land-mine accord, wto's gatt accord etc.
one country's effluent pumped downriver into the next country will result in bilateral friction. it's not a given that two countries can sort out the problem, but it's more possible than when many countries are involved. air pollution, whilst indirectly involving everyone, hits the polluter's host country most severely. likewise, pollutants piped into coastal waters have their worst impact at the site of effluence. so some popular incentive already exists to ameliorate the local environment.
looking at the un's scrapbook should be enough to abandon any hope of multilateral solutions.
Published: December 25, 2007 10:23 PM
SK
As a member of several of the organizations that TT mentioned as supporting global warming - I've never been solicited for a vote on the matter; most of these "official" proclamations are done by the governing board. Perhaps they represent the true views of most of the members, but there is never an announcement of the voting results, just the announcement that the AGU now supports "the scientific consensus" on global warming. So now I suspect that the entire membership of the AGU is considered in the number of scientists supporting GW hypotheses, including members such as myself who never voted.
From what I've seen (articles, presentations) carbon flux modeling is probably less statistically advanced than modern econometrics - a scientific discipline known for its exceptional forecasting accuracy.
Published: December 26, 2007 9:28 AM
slenderdog
AGW is Al Gore's Iraq war. Had he been elected this frenzy would have been institutionalised and billions would have been devoted to government programs to address the problem. An alternative policy to occupying the oil fields--and commendable only in contrast to the use of violence to guard energy security. Doomed, of course, to fail, and much preferable in its neutered version as we see here.
Published: December 27, 2007 8:04 AM
corrigan
I believe our friend,the Climate Salemite, earlier succumbed to the usual pat dismissal of a dangerous outbreak of mass heresy by scorning the Senate 400 as being composed of a hodge podge of scientifically-aware laymen (gasp!) rather than climate scientists per se (am I the only one to begin to think that last phrase is on the way to becoming a contradiction in terms?)
Well, he who lives by the sword, etc. Try this for a 'he who casts the first stone' riposte to the credentials of some of the IPCC heirophants!
See here
Published: December 28, 2007 5:11 PM
Eli Rabett
Rabett Labs has not only been investigating the , but also sleuthing the IPCC author list for Exxon moles, and indeed we have found one. Shock, horror.
Published: January 3, 2008 10:23 PM
Tony Leigh
I believe it was Newsweek magazine that recently rated Howard University as the second worst college in the U.S., out of several hundred they rated.
And who is one of the worst rated teachers, in the second worst school in the entire country?
It's Eli Rabett, the guy who writes in the affected 3rd person voice, like an insufferable valley girl. I mean really, who else writes in such a juvenile manner? Name even one.
"Eli" is a prime example of the abject failure of government education. His teaching is rated as "incompetent," and based on everything he writes for his blog during class time (when he is being overpaid to teach rather than blog), he is also a poster boy for corruption and misappropriation of funds -- and a damning indictment of the tenure system.
Published: November 6, 2009 6:50 AM