Yes, I know

Most of you don\’t agree with me.

But this is a good laying out of the climate change thing from the frontline I think.

Note my comment there: I\’m perfectly happy to take the climate science, at this very basic level, as being valid. What pisses me off is the following:

1) Those who would use the IPCC to prove that we should do something are insistent on not listening to what the economists at the IPCC say we should do.

2) Those who would use their credentials as climate scientists to tell us what we should do in economics: no, I don\’t listen to economists trying to explain hydrology to me so why on earth is anyone listening to hydrologists on matters economic?

18 comments on “Yes, I know

  1. Stoat ??!?! You’d take Connelly as an honest man ? He’s one of the more egregious distorters and serial fabricators involved in the whole climate con, and he’s personally unpleasant to go with it. A man I wouldn’t trust with a brass razoo.

    Tim adds: As far as I know, yes, honest. He’s certainly grapsed he most important part of the whole thing for me. He’s said it may times before: what is to be done is an economic question, one beyond his technical training.

  2. Someone rightly said long ago that politicians use statistics the way that drunkards use lamp-posts; more for support than illumination.

  3. So, cutting through the padding and looking at his “updates” he’s essentially saying that (a) he, and some of the IPCC claim that warming is all “man made” – largely because they can’t actually think of another reason, and (b) it’s not really going to be a problem anyway.

    I don’t agree with (a) (much) but (b) seems a decent summation.

  4. Isn’t Connolley the man who was suspended as an editor on Wikipaedia since he specialised in removing all material which didn’t agree with UEA and the IPCC?

  5. “Expert removes idiots’ wankings from website”. Only in the crazy parallel ‘tooniverse of Wikiland could that be spun as a bad thing.

    I agree with Tim, and with the Stoat. At the same time, I cringe at the general-leftie and old-school-green reaction to climate change (this sums up most of them).

    But the one thing that makes me comfortable about the side of the debate I’m aligned with is that even my most idiotic fellow travellers tend to accept science and distrust some combination of economics, and politicians’ will to not be filthy cheats and liars [*]. Whilst I accept the principles of both science and economics over the rantings of madmen, I’m aware that science’s track record (e.g.: you’re reading this; you didn’t die when you were a baby) is better than economics’s (e.g.: you owe a great deal of money, your job’s on the line).

    [*] Lomberg’s a classic example of this one. Yes, if all the money we could spend on delaying climate change were instead spent on reducing poverty, the net result would be better. However a) if we sent money to poor places to reduce poverty, much of it would be stolen by crooks; b) if governments stopped spending money on delaying climate change, there’s no way in hell they’d be able to get away with sending the same amount of money to poor places to reduce poverty even if the people in charge weren’t crooks who’d steal it…

  6. @johnB: Classic strawman argument. No one is suggesting that money spent on “preventing” climate change should just be shipped to poor countries to be siphoned off by corrupt regimes. What Monckton et al are saying is that the vast – and they are vast – sums of taxpayers’ money that governments currently use to fund useless and in some cases totally counter-productive “green” projects would be better directed into scientific projects that will actually benefit the poorer nations’ productivity, and thus raise them out of poverty and disease.
    @DizzyRingo: Correct. Connelley is the serial Wikipedia vandal of long standing. Why Worstall thinks he’s “honest” I have no idea. Particularly since by saying there is a “consensus” and enumerating four basic points – all of which are contentious – Connolley’s just told one big whopper from the get-go.

    So Timmy, if the science “at this very basic level” is hardly settled, where does that leave you? As a renowned Hayekian (http://timworstall.com/2010/07/04/so-it-would-seem-that-im-a-hayekian-not-a-keynesian/), do you give up your ideas because you’re surrounded by a “consensus” of Keynesians? I josh, of course. But you can talk all the sense you like about the economics of climate change, but if the central point you’re arguing from – that there is man-made climate change and that we must (and more importantly, can) stop it – are the basis of contention rather than consensus, all your fine thoughts are just so much angels-on-a-pinhead stuff.

    What is a constantly revealing about the climate change debate is how presumably serious, deep thinkers who maintain a strictly sceptical, question-everything approach in their own field instantly lose that when talking about a field they may not specialise in. It’s not so much that they don’t know the science (how could they?), it’s that they somehow lose the sceptical mindset when changing trains.

    Tim adds: Well, perhaps because what the econmoists are actually saying about climate change (no, not Greenpeace, and not the politicians) are actually good things to do in and of themselves. Globalisation, markets and Pigou Taxes. There we are, we’re done.

  7. John B said: “However a) if we sent money to poor places to reduce poverty, much of it would be stolen by crooks; b) if governments stopped spending money on delaying climate change, there’s no way in hell they’d be able to get away with sending the same amount of money to poor places to reduce poverty even if the people in charge weren’t crooks who’d steal it…”

    Or you could take a different approach. Don’t send money, spend money. Free trade and reduce foreign aid. They get money, we get goods, out cost of living reduces, their income increases. They can then afford their own climate change adaption programmes from their own income and so can we from the money we save.

  8. Tim, if you don’t listen to hydrologists doing economics, why are you listening to a computer programmer doing climate science?

    A hypothesis without convincing evidence remains just that: a hypothesis. It does not become the favoured explanatory model through rhetorical repetition.

  9. “Tim adds: Well, perhaps because what the econmoists are actually saying about climate change (no, not Greenpeace, and not the politicians) are actually good things to do in and of themselves.”

    Whoops, Timmy: Just changed trains and forgotten to take all your baggage with you.

    The economists of which you speak are – correctly, as far as I can tell – saying this is the way the world is, and this is the way to husband * its resources for the greater benefit of everyone. In other words, conservation in many cases will help productivity. I can’t argue with that. You don’t argue with that. Don’t think Adam Smith would have a problem with it either.

    That’s not what Connelley et al are saying. As far as I can make out, they’re saying: “We’ve got this theory, right, that what we’ve done in the last 200 years has got right up Gaia’s nose and here’s a hockey stick to prove it. So you gonna pay for it.”

    Which, let’s face it, is something completely different.

    * I use “husband” in its original sense purely to annoy Harriet Harman, who, I have it on good authority, drops in on Timmy occasionally (when she’s not visiting Ritchie).**

    **Gratuitous and obligatory blog insult.

  10. Please read The Hockey Stick Illusion—yes, you too, johnb—and understand that the practices there are not localised (either geographically or in area).

    Then please show me some damn evidence about this catastrophic global warming stuff.

    DK

  11. Pingback: Global Warming – a simple summary unpicked « Manicbeancounter’s Weblog

  12. Although well put, the statement that all the 20th century warming was caused by anthropogenic GHGs needs to be more nuanced. Attempts to separate out the human influence from the natural factors are difficult. Hence the importance attached to the discredited Hockey Stick, to show there could be no other reason for the warming.

    Further, the, very facts that the science is downplayed, minor details overblown, the motives of the critics doubted, along with procedurals failures downplayed, makes many to become like the former readers of Pravda. They read between the lines and trust none of it.

    Further at discussion at http://manicbeancounter.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/global-warming-a-simple-summary-unpicked/

  13. Tim has a lovely economics blog and a keen economics brain but is quite … … … eccentric, yes, eccentric, le mot juste, on Glowbull Wormening.

    Of which there is none.

    Having to read Tim on the ‘science’ of it is as painful as reading Murphy on just about anything.

  14. John b, I was for a brief period one of thodse who attempted to post simple undisputed facts into Wikipedia in areas that Connelly “policed”. None survived more than a few hours at most. I think your statement about Connelly being an expert is yet another classic case of your utter misrepresentation, unless of course you mean he’s an expert at obfuscation, one-sided presentation, and the suppression of facts that don’t agree with his desired narrative. Then, i would agree with you

  15. Jeez Tim, you write so eloquently on other matters, yet you have fallen for this obvious scam. You refer to climate science, but there’s no such thing – it’s a guessing game, pure and simple. There is no ‘Gore’s Law’ as in a repeatable, demonstrably factual ‘when x and y happen, z will result’, now why is that?

  16. Pingback: Muir Russell & unpicking Global Warming « Manicbeancounter’s Weblog

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.