Skip to content

Good Lord, he’s learnt some economics

I asked the question that heads this post in The National yesterday, starting by noting that:

IN the 1960s the US writer and civil rights activist James Baldwin said “I can’t believe what you say, because I see what you do.” His message was simple. He was saying that what people said about their attitude towards racism did not matter; it is what they did that counts.

Expressed and revealed preferences. Of course, if we pointed this out to him he’d insist that it was mere neoliberalism but there we are.

22 thoughts on “Good Lord, he’s learnt some economics”

  1. I can’t be arsed to be at the bleeding edge of fashion, so I don’t know where black men are in the Top Trumps of the Identity Cult, but that phrase has often been used by this ancient white far-right geezer when trying to explain to under 40s why I don’t believe in Gerbil Worming. When Barack Obama assured us that 90% of scientists who agreed with the Gerbil Worming fairy story believed in Gerbil Worming and then installed the biggest privately owned propane tank in the world on his multi million dollar property that will be 800 feet under water next week, I began to be somewhat doubtful that being a follower of St Greta was the right thing to do…

  2. What they (Conservative chancellors) said was they would balance the books
    What they did is run deficits .
    Ritchie judges on what was said.

  3. 98% was I believe the figure. Of course the 98% included members of the lofty & rigorous scientific discipline of flower arranging, but nevertheless.

  4. Hat tip (if it was someone who frequents this discussion board) to whoever got one of the Breaking Bad characters onto Spud’s blog. Ironically, one of the character’s lines from the show seems to be aimed at Spud…

    “whatever you think is supposed to happen…I’m telling you, the exact reverse opposite of that is gonna happen, OK?”

  5. Yes, the awful truth about race relations is that white people have been judging the content of their character all along.

    Somehow, because we live in a clown world, this has been morally inverted so as to make white people the baddies for not wanting to suffer under Diversity.

  6. The statement that “97 % (or 98% according to some sources) of scientists believe” is that the climate has warmed over recent decades and that some of this warming can be attributed to human activity. This is fairly uncontroversial, but is a million miles away from the “global boiling” nonsense that we’re fed day-in and day-out.

  7. The 97% was of those who responded to an email sent to a distribution list of climate scientists.
    So the sample was biased from the start, and they only counted responses, not the majority of the recipients who didn’t respond. Inquorate. Fake science.

    Not that it makes a difference, neither science nor reality is a democracy. You can ‘believe’ in a repeal of the law of gravity by any majority you want; you will still hit the f*cking pavement.

    It was a scam from the beginning and remains so. Trouble is, the people who have campaigned for this scam, at UAE and elsewhere, now see their choice is between doubling down, or lamp-posts. They aren’t wrong.

  8. On his blog today, he still lists in his CV (in the About section) that he’s a Chartered Accountant.

    If I could be arsed, I’d report him to ICAEW.

  9. Bloke in North Dorset



    Your weather warning and travel advice was very useful. We made our way via Lochs Lomond & Fyne and various wandering as far as the Inn at Ardgour at the ferry crossing south of Fort William where we had a nice meal and parked in their car park. We’d planned to head to Skye for a few days and then up the west coast and back down the east coast.

    When we checked the weather forecast it was quite dire for Skye so I checked the east coast and were now sat in a large car park overlooking the coast in a very warm and sunny Tain. We’re reversing our route and hoping the weather for Skye has cheered before we get there in 8 or so days.

  10. Wikipedia claimed that at one point there was 99% consensus on AGW, and that the 1% were engaging in pseudoscience. Has there ever been that large a consensus in scientific history? Smells of bullshit to me.

    Take for example the question – “is squatting below parallel bad for one’s knees”. There is a whole raft of arguments for and against from exercise scientists, chiropractors, oseteopaths, doctors, strength and conditioning specialists, powerlifters etc and there is STILL no consensus. And that is something without the multitude of variables and complexity that AGW presents.

  11. the multitude of variables and complexity that AGW presents.
    Why, I gather, if anyone tells you they’re a “climate scientist” they’re not. What influences climate over time covers such a vast field of scientific disciplines, no one person could encompass more than a fraction.

  12. Here’s a silly simple thing:
    No doubt you’ll have read about the amount of CO² released into the atmosphere by cement making. But did you know that the curing process of concrete absorbs CO²? Around 30% of the CO² emitted in the manufacturing process will be reabsorbed in the carbonisation process. Now there is a product called carbonised concrete, where CO² is injected into the concrete in the mixing. But that has a deleterious effect on concrete compressibility. Pretty well all concrete is allowed to cure naturally. But that takes a very long time. Even for exposed concrete in the region of 60 years. So every ton of the trillions of tons of concrete been poured since we started using the stuff is currently busily absorbing CO². Even if we stopped making the stuff today, that process would continue for decades or more likely centuries. Slowly & surely reducing atmospheric CO².
    It’s something I sort knew, from knowing the chemical process by which concrete cures. (If you use the stuff you have to.) But I’d never actually thought of it like that. Anyone here heard of this before? You’d have thought our “climate scientist experts” might have mentioned it, no? They certainly don’t have any trouble producing the figures for CO² production in manufacture, do they?

  13. Interesting bis.
    It won’t be long before the energy expense of making cement locally (as in *in* the UK) means that like the Haber process last year all production in the UK shuts down and the stuff gets imported.
    That’s not a problem for the Climate Change Committee.
    Embedded emissions in the production of imported cement don’t count towards net zero so that’s all right then. But in the clown world method of territorial calculation of net CO2, what gets absorbed during use in the UK could count to what the UK can net off.
    I predict this is 100% certain.

  14. Bongo – I’m old enough to remember when the complete deindustrialization of the United Kingdom, and an eventual tentative return to crude steam power amongst the impoverished scattered survivors, was the plot to Threads.

  15. Yes. Among us sceptcis – sceptics of the idea that it’s all a big problem that is a disaster – this is well known. Among those screaming their heads off little admission of it, obviously.

  16. Biosphere 2 used a lot of concrete in construction of the totally sealed environment. When they started the first run, the CO2 levels plummeted because of the concrete curing. The CO2 level soon dropped below that necessary for photosynthesis and the plants started dying. The ‘crew’ were also at risk, as the CO2 level is critical to your breathing (not to much, not too little). They had to hurriedly terminate, add lots of gaseous CO2 and restart. Good thing this was in Arizona and not on Mars.

    CO2 levels are at very low levels compared to Earth’s history, and only a little reduction will stop photosynthesis. It has happened on Earth before, and wiped out most life. Let’s hope all thes grand ‘Carbon Capture’ schemes have a high-speed reverse button.

  17. Let’s hope all thes grand ‘Carbon Capture’ schemes have a high-speed reverse button.

    But not too high-speed: we don’t need another Lake Nyos disaster anywhere near us.

  18. Among those screaming their heads off little admission of it, obviously.
    So one could comfortably say that the role of the “climate scientist” is to obscure the science rather than reveal it.

  19. “The effect of placing the word ‘climate’ in front of ‘scientist’ is similar to that of placing the word ‘witch’ before ‘doctor’.”

    Wish I knew who said that- Internet search yields no hits.

  20. I think it may derived from the observation that the word” social negates any following word.

  21. @Chris MIller…

    It was Prof John Brignell of “Numberwatch” fame. I hope that he’s still with us, he was a very ill man some years ago, so perhaps not.

Leave a Reply

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