Why doesn’t the stupid bastard read the goddam research?

From Richard Murphy:

Second, to claim that we are dependent on growth as he defines it is simply wrong. The financially engineered, fossil fuel driven growth of modern capitalism is what is driving us to extinction and there is not a shred of evidence that it can continue into the future and be reconciled with continuing human life on earth.

Third, if he wants to talk growth then it is growth of the state sector that he should have been promoting, but did not. We do need more care, education, social housing, sustainable transport infrastructure and so on. But we do not need more long haul holidays, heavy weight cars, monoculture farming, junk fashion and much else, all designed to fuel the inexorable demand for an interest return to banking.

And fourth, talking green and about growth in the way he does is simply impossible: carbon and temperature targets (let alone those required to secure biodiversity) cannot be reconciled with the sort of GDP growth his report envisioned. We can do more for each other, without a doubt, but only in a radically transformed society and it’s the height of in difference to the fate of humanity to pretend otherwise.

From the actual science on the subject:

RCP 2.6 is the one where everything is kept below 2 oC and where everything is fine. The perceptive will note that GDP is *higher* in this scenario than in more emittively polluting ones.

Why doesn’t the damn fathead ever, I mean ever, bother to check the source materials? Why do we always get these confident predictions entirely at loggerheads with the actual science he professes to be backing up?

Crippled JC on a pogo stick it only takes two minutes to look up the emissions models and their associated GDP levels after all.

26 thoughts on “Why doesn’t the stupid bastard read the goddam research?”

  1. ‘RCP 2.6’

    “I believe that economists put decimal points in their forecasts to show they have a sense of humor.” – William Gilmore Simms

    Cirrusly, Tim, only the government indoctrinated belief these climaty people have a clue what they are talking about.

  2. ‘The financially engineered, fossil fuel driven growth of modern capitalism is what is driving us to extinction and there is not a shred of evidence that it can continue into the future and be reconciled with continuing human life on earth.’

    Tomorrow will provide all the evidence we need. Will he be sorry when it comes?

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Ritchie provides none. A begging the question fallacy.

    ‘Third, if he wants to talk growth then it is growth of the state sector that he should have been promoting’

    “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.”

  3. Lay off, Tim, there is no “actual science” on this subject, just a rodomontade of extrapolations and guesses.

  4. To be honest Tim, the “research”you’re indicating is as much bollocks as Spud spouts. Predicting GDP in 2100 is astrology, not economics. Where’s the kink in early 2020 where C19 bombed out half the world’s economies? Wasn’t predicted in 2011? Oh dear. So what makes it possible to predict the next 80 years?

  5. @bis
    +1 The entire man made Global Warming prediction is Mystic Meg and her crystal ball

    C-19 scam? When Yellowstone pops C-19 will be a sniffle

    Global Warming
    – note the google/youtube Warning
    The History of Climate Cycles

    How Volcanoes Froze the Earth

  6. Dennis, Just Dennis

    How many economists in 1920 correctly predicted the particulars of the global economy of 2000?

  7. More state? No, private sector does better – 4 days & no taxpayer funding

    Fancy a 1/2 Price Sunday Brunch?
    Morrisons cafes extend “Eat Out to Help Out” scheme for the whole week
    “Government will fund the 50% discounts* on Mon-Wed, while Morrisons* will fund it Thur-Sun”

    Menu Full price before discount
    * £10 pp maximum discount

  8. Let’s face it the public, thank you media, don’t even know there is a range of forecasts based on different scenarios. This rather conveniently allows the alarmists to keep using the ones where we have met the criteria or to mix and match results from the different scenarios to paint whatever picture they want. So the scenarios that had pollution like the 70s (wasn’t smog lovely) in many major cities can still be quoted even though we have fixed that problem

  9. “But we do not need ….”

    Good god, he really does want to extinguish human desire, doesn’t he. Down with wants, needs is all that there shall be any effort in statisfying.

  10. Pcar–any decent person would choke on Blojob’s hand out nosh. Sunak likewise. He wants his bosses job but is a schmoozing sales prick who would be even less competent if possible.

  11. Keynes did pretty well in 1930. GDP per capita up about 8 times. Significant fall in working hours – although he thought it would be paid work, rather than what happened, household work.

  12. What is patently ridiculous, yet swallowed up by the gullible, is the notion that a couple of degrees rise in temperature could result in the extinction of the human race. Humans survive in sub-zero temperatures and plus 40 C. The Siberians live in a temperature range from -30 C to +30 C. Most of us experience a 10 C or more variation between night and day, somehow we survive.

  13. @ DocBud
    Almost well said – it was -50 to +35 during my brief visits (but only -40 to +35 for me as we waited until Yakutsk warmed up a bit before going there). The grain-growing areas in Siberia will extend further north (one reason why Putin isn’t that worried about global warming).
    The doomsters are claiming that a 2C rise will precipitate a positive feed back loop and almost unlimited rise.

  14. The doomsters are claiming that a 2C rise will precipitate a positive feed back loop and almost unlimited rise.

    Which we know to be bollocks, as the climate was much hotter in the past. By looking out of the window we can see that the feedback loop does not run away.

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150528083818.htm

    Summary:
    Scientists have reconstructed the climatic development of the Arctic Ocean during the Cretaceous period, 145 to 66 million years ago. At that time the poles were devoid of ice and average temperatures of up to 35 degrees Celsius prevailed in the oceans.

  15. “Down with wants, needs is all that there shall be any effort in statisfying.”

    Statists look for joy in uniformity and conformity. It matters not that it be a grey life of misery, as long as all share the misery.

    Westerners find this so bizarre that they don’t believe it. To their own peril.

  16. Why doesn’t the damn fathead ever, I mean ever, bother to check the source materials?

    Because Murphy, in his own pea-brained mind, is an “original thinker” who is therefore free to think his original thoughts and is unburdened by the learning and knowledge of others.

  17. Why is public transport such as buses and trains “sustainable” while private cars are apparently not?

  18. @BiW
    And there’s good evidence that CO2 in the Cretaceous was at over 3,000 ppm, rather than the 400 that we’re currently obsessing about. Sure, temperatures were higher* – there were crocodiles at the South Pole – and sea levels were much higher than today, but the earth did not enter a feedback loop and become another Venus.

    * educated opinions differ as to whether CO2 leads or lags temperature changes

  19. Bloke in North Dorset

    “ * educated opinions differ as to whether CO2 leads or lags temperature changes”

    In the early days of C4 they had a very good science program called Equinox and they revealed some of the early research into ice cores that were used as the basis for the CO2 lags theory.

    Sadly they’d never get away with that now and I presume that program’s been flushed down the memory hole.

  20. @BiND
    The problem that I have with presumed pre-industrial temperature & CO2 levels is their basis on proxies. Which in turn are based on hypotheses. When you know how science actually works rather than how pretends to work, how much faith can you have in it? Science apolitical. It’s riven with its own politics. Research that supports a paradigm will get funding & acclaim. Research that undermines a paradigm will be starved of funds & sidelined. It’s happened over & over again. The global warming myth is a scientific “fact” because so much money has been poured in to make it so.

  21. @Tim
    So Keynes got it right, but for the wrong reasons. So some of the increase in individual productivity he forecast didn’t happen but was compensated for by workers released into the workforce by the necessity for less domestic labour. Still sounds wrong to me.

  22. ‘as long as all share the misery.’

    As long as all others share the misery. There you are, Gamecock, fixed that for you.

Leave a Reply

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