Timmy elsewhere

At the ASI.

It’s probably quite sensible to listen to climate scientists on climate science. But not about the economics of what we do to deal with it.

35 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere”

  1. It’s probably sensible to listen to members of the tax justice network on tax justice. After all, what do *I* know about tax justice? I’m no expert! I’m no expert on who is, either. But I’ve heard that Ritchie has spent *years* researching it.

    I shall pay close attention to his recommendations forthwith. Thanks!

  2. It’s probably a good idea to listen to homeopathists on the science of homeopathy. Or bishops on the existence of the Christian god.

  3. @PF
    From the link

    “And he argued that complete convergence was not necessary before joining a currency zone, as countries converge more quickly once they are using the same currency.”

    Didn’t that work out well?

  4. So Much For Subtlety

    PF – “I recall over a decade ago many eminent economists insisting that Britain would be much better off joining the euro.”

    I recall virtually every professional economist in Britain signing a statement condemning Thatcher’s reforms.

  5. “It’s probably quite sensible to listen to climate scientists on climate science.” It isn’t; it really isn’t. In fact, it’s the height of folly.

  6. You might have a point about listening to climate scientists, if there were any climate scientists. Nearly all are the same as Richard Murphy. Working in one field but pretending to be experts in another just like Murphy is an accountant pretending to be a tax expert.

    You will find the true climate scientists are ones that do not think the science it settled (because it never is) and do not go around clamouring for more money to fund their pet project because the chicken little sky is falling disaster is upon us.

  7. SBML – ” Nearly all are the same as Richard Murphy. Working in one field but pretending to be experts in another”

    What, even celebrated former Wikipedia editor William Connelly?

  8. I see you’ve still got the same nutters here.

    So, if you have to be qualified to pontificate, what exactly are your qualifications for pontificating on who is allowed to pontificate?

    > The people we ought to be listening to about what we do are the economists

    Sounds like classic self-interest to me.

  9. I see you’ve still got the same nutters here.

    Care to explain? I thought most of the comments above look to be nothing more than quite rational observations.

    So, if you have to be qualified to pontificate, what exactly are your qualifications for pontificating on who is allowed to pontificate?

    Rather than pontification, isn’t this about properly justifying (cost /benefit etc) the spend of absolutely mind bogglingly humungous sums of our (tax payers’) money?

    > The people we ought to be listening to about what we do are the economists

    Sounds like classic self-interest to me.

    I can’t believe you just said that..!!

  10. > The prof seems to be suggesting that it’s quite sensible not to listen to “climate scientists”.

    I guess you’d better start off by not listening to L, then, since he is one. Although, ter be honest with yer, not a very good one. He was better at the start of his career, when he did atmospheric dynamics. Its all been downhill for him since then. Just look at his biography.

    > I can’t believe you just said that

    Because its just so blindingly obvious that Timmy, too, is motivated by self-interest that it didn’t need to be said?

    > isn’t this about properly justifying

    No. Timmy’s post is about who is allowed to speak. Not “allowed” as in free speech: Timmy would happily defend anyone’s right to speak, within very wide limits. But its about who is allowed to speak so that those in power listen. Timmy wants economists to be given a privileged position. And why wouldn’t he? This is just Tamsin all over again.

  11. Climate science always comes down to the idea that humanity is doomed – doomed, I tell you! – unless Top Men like Obama and Ed Milliband get more control over the economy. Only their genius central planning schemes can save us.

    And if you don’t swallow all that, some twat comes along and calls you a “nutter”. Real scientific, yeah.

  12. William Connelly – “No. Timmy’s post is about who is allowed to speak.”

    No. Timmy’s post is about who we should listen to, not who is allowed to speak.

    It’s not a controversial point.

    For example, if we want advice on how to edit Wikipedia, ask a Wikipedia editor (preferably not one who was thrown off Wikipedia in disgrace though).

    If we want advice on economics, ask someone who understands economics.

    Nobody’s suggesting Wikipedia editors or whoever shouldn’t be allowed to flap their gums about subjects they don’t understand.

  13. > Timmy’s post is about who we should listen to, not who is allowed to speak.

    This must be the slow class. I already said that.

    > preferably not one who was thrown off Wikipedia in disgrace though

    That doesn’t describe me, so I assume you have someone else in mind. Or that you’re particularly crap at mud-flinging.

    > If we want advice on economics, ask someone who understands economics.

    Mmmmm, yes, that’s entirely plausible. But you’re still missing my point. I can try again, though I really doubt it will do any good. Timmy is trying to talk abut “who should we listen to”. So are you. But by Timmy’s own argument, we shouldn’t listen to him on that subject, because he has no expertise on it. Its a kinda subtle philosophical point, so I expect it to do down here like a lead balloon.

  14. William Connelly – if only you could edit other people’s blogs as easily as Wikipedia, eh? It must be tiresome to find yourself directly contradicted by your own words, written just moments before.

    > Timmy’s post is about who we should listen to, not who is allowed to speak.

    This must be the slow class. I already said that.

    No, this is what you wrote:

    “No. Timmy’s post is about who is allowed to speak.”

    What was your PhD in again? Obviously it wasn’t logic or reading comprehension.

    Perhaps we’d get more sense out of Mr Weasel:

    http://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Connolley.jpg

  15. William,

    OK, I think I understand where you are coming from (when you say Tim is no more qualified than a climate scientist), ie policy is politics, not science (what is happening) nor economics (what the cost / benefit of a particular action will be). If I have understood you correctly..??

    It’s an interesting one. I still think Tamsin has a good point when it comes to credibility.

    Wherever the policy comes from, you want as many honest brokers as possible, otherwise you simply end up where we are.

  16. William,

    Do you therefore refute the carbon tax solution as a policy?

    If you don’t, then I don’t follow why you are objecting to what Tim is saying simply in the context of the Adam Smith article?

  17. > Connelly

    Your spelling is as poor as your ability to read.

    > “No. Timmy’s post is about who is allowed to speak.”

    Which, as any fule can read for themselves (so I can only assume that your intent is to insult the intelligence of other readers of these comments) I qualified by:

    “Not “allowed” as in free speech: Timmy would happily defend anyone’s right to speak, within very wide limits. But its about who is allowed to speak so that those in power listen. ”

    > What was your PhD in again?

    I don’t have a PhD, bozo.

    > Do you therefore refute the carbon tax solution as a policy?

    I’m in favour of a carbon tax: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2011/06/06/carbon-tax-now-1/ etc etc. You’ll note I acknowledge my debt to Timmy in there.

    > ie policy is politics, not science

    You’re mostly there, though that isn’t quite the point either, its a bit more meta than that.

    > I though she added something useful to the discussion?

    You mean, by contradicting her main point? I thought it was crap: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/08/01/two-opinion-pieces-or-three-if-you-count-james-but-thats-four-if-you-count-me-oh-hang-on-ill-come-in-again/

  18. Connolley is doing the “usual thing”, trying to divert attention from the discussion. The latest IPCC report suggests that things are not as apocalyptic as Hansen thought…that there are few signs of things “getting worse”, whatever that may mean. Hence, governments are justified in taking a wait-and-see-attitude.

    This sits ill with the need of the activists. So…disrupt the discussion at all costs. Lindzen has a lot of cited papers under his belt (rather more than most approved climate scientists)…but Connolley can dismiss him casually. He is using the Richard Murphy/Hodge tactic of ignoring the evidence in favour of his narrative, which he is unable to expound because he lacks any rhetorical skills.

    We urgently need a Connolley William to explain his real intyentions.

  19. > Hence

    But you’d agree (following Timmy) that they, and we, should ignore you, because you have no relevant expertise.

    Don’t you?

  20. Just to check. i was under the impression this guy was a computer programmer. Writes climate models. Where’s the qualification for interpreting them?

  21. Re: William Connelly

    Surely the point here is that scientists who are working in the field can tell us of the benefits, risks and, if necessary, the cure (in the case of climate science – none, apocalypse and reduce emissions of a trace gas respectively – if the media reports into climate science are in anyway believable).

    However the analysis of weighting the cost of avoiding the risks versus the costs of incurring the risks is outside of the field of climatology.

    Sure, climate scientists could argue that some economists, whose field this lies in, are weighting some things incorrectly and work with them (or with others) to improve the economic models to properly reflect their scientific findings. But they do this as an interested layperson rather than an expert in that field – other than on the specific items of science that they are advising on.

    Politicians, who are elected to take care of the “what to do” part of these sort of debates on our behalf; seem to take far too much notice of what the interested layperson says than they do the economist. Sure, the science is interesting, but the politics should be focussed on the costs (current and future) vs benefits (current and future) – and this is outside of most scientists remit as they will be focusing on the non-monetary costs and benefits only.

  22. If you want to know the consequences of ignoring climate change, ask a climate scientist. If you want to know the consequences of taking a particular action, ask an economist. Then you can make an informed decision about taking that particular action.

    Simple.

  23. > Writes climate models

    You’re as wrong and ignorant about that as you are about everything else.

  24. WC: > Writes climate models

    You’re as wrong and ignorant about that as you are about everything else.

    You seem very cross and rude. Why not simply correct the mistake and put us all right?

    As to Prof Lindzen, I understood him to be saying that in the world of scientific endeavour, climate science has the status of media studies.

    I thought this was both funny and compelling.

  25. You mean, by contradicting her main point? I thought it was crap:

    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/08/01/two-opinion-pieces-or-three-if-you-count-james-but-thats-four-if-you-count-me-oh-hang-on-ill-come-in-again/

    William, many thanks for the link, that’s very helpful.

    From reading the comments below Tasmin, yours and James (which you kindly linked to), the clearest narrative to emerge for me was precisely the extent to which excessive political advocacy in some quarters has influenced the direction of the whole climate science process?

    Of course, I accept that perhaps you read it quite differently?

  26. Well Mr William Connolley. perhaps you should toddle over to Wiki & edit your entry. It has you down as a mathematician who worked for the British Antarctic Survey designing climate models. Later became a a software engineer for Cambridge Silicon Radio. This isn’t you? Not your employment history?

    You see, if I were having a house built, the last person I’d entrust with deciding the windows would be the salesman from a uPVC double glazing company. Because, when he produced a technical report all based on immaculate scientific reasoning, that uPVC double glazed windows were the ideal solution for my window needs I’d be wondering whether he had his grubby thumb on the balance of that reasoning.

  27. @Matthew L

    If you want to know the consequences of ignoring climate change, ask a climate scientist.

    Economic & financial consequences (of not taking action – or mitigating or anything else), I would ask the economist, not the scientist?

    With knowledge of both the forecast science and economics, there may be a chance of an informed policy decision?

    All assuming of course that the subject matter is sufficiently well understood for such forecasts or projections to be regarded as useful or reliable?

  28. @bloke in spain: February 3, 2014 at 11:07 am

    Well Mr William Connolley. perhaps you should toddle over to Wiki & edit your entry.

    Perhaps he’s still barred, and can’t. 🙂

  29. > Prof Lindzen… climate science has the status of media studies.
    > I thought this was both funny and compelling.

    Well, I admit that its funny, because since L *is* a “climate scientist”, he’s dissing himself. But (other than reinforcing your prejudices) it isn’t clear why you found it compelling. Did he offer a sustained and reasoned argument? Did he provide clear examples?

    > clearest narrative to emerge for me

    We’re certainly reading it differently.

    > Wiki & edit your entry

    My entry there is correct. You’re just too stupid to read it correctly. Would you like to have another go?

    > Perhaps he’s still barred

    You too are incapable of reading.

  30. For those who might care just a very little, it appears Dr Connolley is rather pedantically, shallowly and puerilely trying to distinguish between a PhD and a DPhil.

  31. WC: Did he offer a sustained and reasoned argument? Did he provide clear examples?

    I wouldn’t dream of suggesting you hadn’t had the chance of glancing at the report of the Prof’s evidence to the select committee but I thought his argument was perfectly clear and he rather showed up his questioners as being both parti pris and not up to the job.

  32. There goes fuckwit Connelly again, still lying and being thoroughly dishonest. Don’t you ever tire, William, if being so dishonest that everything you say is in some way a lie ? You did once claim to help design climate models, and one can have no doubt that they performed so inadequately thanks to incompetence and in capability that you had to leave and work elsewhere. Except that in climate science incompetence and incapability are usually taken as positive signs as long as you can parrot the correct mantras

    Connelly even still believes that Michael Mann has some expertise in something other than scientific fraud, even though he is not qualified as a climate scientist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *