Explaining Richard J Murphy’s economics

Chris Auld does the job here.

Every mainstream science which touches on political or religious ideology attracts more than its fair share of deniers: the anti-vaccine crowd v mainstream medicine, GMO fearmongers v geneticists, creationists v biologists, global warming deniers v climatologists. Economics is no different, but economics cranks differ in that they typically make false claims about the content of economics itself, as opposed, or as a prelude, to false claims about the way the world works. That target sometimes making it hard for non-economists to differentiate crankery from solid criticism.

Here, then, are some symptoms of bad critiques of economics:

I think 1 and 12 are the only two I’ve not seen Ritchie do……

22 comments on “Explaining Richard J Murphy’s economics

  1. “global warming deniers v climatologists.” should read, “CO2 – led politicised activists v global warming sceptics”.

  2. I am fairly sure (but can’t be bothered to do the wading through his turgid excretions that providing references would require) that he regularly lambasts economists for refusing to allow that his views (also, those of his paymasters and camp followers) aren’t “rational”. Which seems to be the (malicious? ) misunderstanding of the economic usage that Chris was alluding to in #12.

    I notice our undearly departed student (okay, deliberate ignoramus) troll is hiding under Chris’s bridge now.

  3. Ha ha – it was great to see KL’s comments. You’re sane yourself, Timmy, but you attract as many GW nutters as Ritchie attracts Econ cranks!

    Probably because you take good care not to offend them – readers are money, after all. But why not open up, as you do on Ritchie, and just for once tell the KL’s what you really think of their insane ranting?

    > economics cranks differ in that they typically make false claims about the content of economics itself

    Your man is wrong about that. The denialists do exactly that for GW. 1 – tick. 2 – tick. 3 – NA. 4 – tick-by-analogy. And so on.

  4. I note Smurph uses the word “deniers” as if we should accept everything without question. He really is and odious turd.

  5. Time will tell, William, and time is very much on the side of those you label insane ranters. No warming of statistical significance since c 2000 for starters, and a growing consensus, a post-normal scientific necessity so beloved of warmists, that global temperatures will drop for at least a generation. Winter is coming as a result of natural variation, William – I hope you are ready for it. BTW, I don’t deny the effect of GHGs, it’s just that the empirical evidence points to increased CO2 as being a minor driver of climate, and a net benefit to the biosphere.

  6. WC v KL. I’m with KL on this one… And I’m a “proper” scientist (or was until I retired anyway) not a jumped-up computer programmer with delusions of adequacy.

  7. Pogo: no, you’re an anon. You can’t claim credentialism if no-one can verify your claims. I, at least, can prove I’m a retired-from-science scientist.

    > a growing consensus, a post-normal scientific necessity so beloved of warmists, that global temperatures will drop for at least a generation

    Yeah yeah sure. Then why will none of you gutless wimps bet on it?

  8. William… True, I’m an “anon” and you’re a “name”, albeit one that relies on supporting “climate science” for its income and perks.

    I’m an anon for a reason, to whit the damage that you and your ideologically-motivated bretheren have succeeded in doing to the careers and reputations of honest scientists who’ve had the temerity to question “the concensus”. I assume that you’ve read at least a little bit of the “climategate” revelations about the machinations of “the team”.

    Regarding putting a bet on what the climate will be doing in a generation’s time, I’m tempted, but two things hold me back. One, I’m getting on a bit and thus unlikely still to be alive in another generation’s time so will be unable to have the satisfaction of collecting. Two, and more to the point, I have absolutely no idea what the climate will be doing in 30-odd years time other than it will be colder or warmer or much the same. The difference between us is that I understand and admit that while your faction don’t understand it either but continue to produce fatuous and inaccurate models as if you did.

  9. Billy me Bhoy. I’m prepared to wager that by 2040, the global average temperature as measured by RSS will be lower than today’s global average temperature measured by RSS. As I will have been pushing up daisies for some time by then, I’m more interested in the posthumous bragging rights. The wager will be £100 from each of us placed in an interest-bearing account to be administered by an agreed bet-holder and the residue paid to the charity of the winner’s choice. As the Guardian will be but a memory by then, a notice will be placed in the Times setting out the terms of the bet, the participants and the result, to be paid for from the bet.

    Is there any chance you will drop the adolescent ad-hommery and reply in an adult fashion?

  10. > albeit one that relies on supporting “climate science” for its income and perks

    No I don’t. Can’t you at least try to be consistent in your insults? As you’ve almost-correctly-noted, I’m a software engineer. My blog gets me peanuts – it certainly doesn’t support me.

    > I’m an anon for a reason, to whit…

    No, that’s not why you’re anon. I’ve no idea what your real reasons are, though. FUD, I suspect. You’re wrong about CG (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy) but re-fighting that war in this comment thread would be tedious.

    > Regarding putting a bet…

    Apologies if you misinterpreted who I was talking to: I realise you hadn’t made any spurious prediction in this instance. Its KL here who won’t put his money where his mouth is.

  11. I wonder, however, why the examples used on that Chris Auld blog of bad criticisms (I refuse to use critique) of economics do not cite “the number 1 economics blogger in the UK”?

  12. I posted my wager 2 mins before Billy boy posted his schoolboy reply to a real scientist. As I expected, crickets chirping, wolves howling in the distance. Natural variation deniers don’t like it up ’em. Apologies for taking over the blog, Timmy, for the sake of facing down yet another all-hat-and-no -cattle politicised warmist.

  13. @William

    >Can’t you at least try to be consistent in your insults?

    It wasn’t supposed to be an insult, just a reference to your past employment.

    >I’m a software engineer. My blog gets me peanuts – it certainly doesn’t support me.

    I was referring to your previous employment with the British Antarctic Survey. However, I apologise for the inaccuracy as you now appear to have a “proper job”. 🙂

    >>I’m an anon for a reason, to whit…
    >FUD, I suspect.

    “F” certainly.

    >You’re wrong about CG (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy)

    To refute me you quote Wiki?? On anything to do with climate – especially as contentious as CG?? As you aptly demonstrated in the past, until you were banned, Wiki can be locked-down and used as an activist site, it certainly isn’t authoritative. I have a full set of the leaked/hacked emails on my system and I prefer to look at the raw data rather than the bowdlerised or “interpreted” version maintained by a closed interest-group.

    >>Regarding putting a bet…
    >Apologies if you misinterpreted who I was talking to:

    I just assumed that the class “gutless wimps” included anyone sceptical, ie me.

  14. KL> I posted my wager…

    2040 is too far distant to be of interest to either of us. And in the spirit of Timmy, I’m interested in a wager that would make money. How about 5 years time? After all, you’re predicting:

    “that global temperatures will drop for at least a generation”

    not that it will take a generation for them to drop.

  15. William Connelly: I don’t really know who you are, but when you say: “No, that’s not why you’re anon. I’ve no idea what your real reasons are, though”, I read you as being prepared to make an outright assertion when you have no evidence to back it up.

    That doesn’t make me terribly keen to believe any other arguments you make. You sound like the sort of person who would draw a conclusion first and cherry-pick evidence to support that conclusion later, although from other comments I suspect you wouldn’t like to have that image.

    As I say, I don’t know who you are, but verb. sap.

  16. I’m a pensioner, I don’t have ,”real money”. The bet is for bragging rights, and a charity will benefit. Anyway, I’m thinking of the grandchildren. I notice you didn’t have an alternative proposal, merely negative remarks, no doubt setting the scene so you can eventually gracefully withdraw. Put up your alternative proposal, minimum 10 years from today.

  17. KL> I notice you didn’t have an alternative proposal

    I said: “How about 5 years time?”

    and now you’ve said:

    > I don’t have ,”real money”. The bet is for bragging rights… minimum 10 years from today…

    I don’t think I can be bothered for bragging rights; previously you were offering £100, even that’s on the small side for something that needs to be tracked 10 years into the future.

    How about RSS global linear trend over the 5 year period 2013-17: sig pos at 95% two-tailed I win, sig neg you win, not sig no money changes hands.

  18. It’s an interesting one, but would as little as five years be statistically significant in this context?

    Whilst Kevin did say “will drop for at least a generation”, five years by itself wouldn’t mean anything; and which is why I presume he opted further out (?), even if that meant posthumous!

  19. Billy. Apologies for the delay in replying, reality got in the way for a few hours.
    AMO isn’t due to go negative until 2020 at the earliest, that’s why I want to go out to 2023 when any change in AMO will be significant. Also, as I understand the statistical calculation, 2013 -2017 will still be relying in part on a few years previous to the bet, which will tip the calculation in your favour. As you presumably do not think that natural variation plays a major role in the climate budget, a few more years should make no difference to you. You win if there’s no significant
    change from today by October 25th 2023 or temperatures have significantly increased. I win if temperatures have significantly declined, in accordance with your criteria. The substance of the bet is that natural variation will have been empirically proven to have a greater effect on the climate budget than GCM-modelled CO2-induced forcing. Hence the bragging rights. The £100 is still on the table, I’m sorry it’s not richer fare. Whose Global Linear Trend Temperature graph do you want to use?
    BTW. I’m surprised you’ve stayed with the challenge thus far. Kudos to you.

  20. > Billy.

    I don’t answer to that. Don’t use it again.

    > as I understand the statistical calculation, 2013 -2017 will still be relying in part on a few years previous to the bet

    No. It uses 2013-2017 only. How could it be otherwise?

    10 years is too long for only £100. 5 years is indeed short for a climatological series, but its the best I can offer I’m afraid.

  21. Slipknot have revealed yet another song a week before their new album is unleashed
    to the world. On the other hand, when you play music for a big audience, it is vital that you cater for everyone’s tastes.
    With all these benefits, the blogs are the best places to
    look for online Tamil songs.

Leave a Reply

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