« Some thoughts on the bubble/s and financial crisis/es | Main | When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Wow. 230 Leading Canadian Economists jumped onto a bandwagon without checking their facts. How embarrassing will it be for you when it becomes common knowledge that anthropogenic global warming is a pernicious lie...

Just as an example, go read Mann, et al. (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 105(36):13252-13257). You will find a graph of global temperature over the last two thousand years, which exhibits an alarming hockey-stick uptrend since about 1900 or so.

Then go to


for a detailed analysis of how Mann et al. COOKED THE DATA TO FABRICATE THE UPTREND.

And just in case you're inclined to dispense with the due diligence, let me quote the relevant conclusion for you:

"This clearly demonstrates a strong hockey stick modification to the complete data set. It was accomplished using a RegEM method which has been used by others to interpolate between series, extrapolating (projecting the future) is another use entirely! But how many of these were accepted into the 484 series of the final paper?

After some number crunching I found that 391 of the 484 used data sets included extrapolated data."


Come on, now. You are economists. If anyone can be expected to appreciate the mechanics of statistical data analysis and non-linear time series prediction, it is you. So don’t be so gullible. Go check your facts. Go do your due diligence. And then write a retraction of your chicken-little sky-is-falling letter... that way you will be much less embarrassed than if you let it stand until everyone becomes fully aware of the extent of the politically motivated fraud of global warming alarmism.

You will find a graph of global temperature over the last two thousand years, which exhibits an alarming hockey-stick uptrend since about 1900 or so.

Indeed you will, but you will also find that (a) this is far from the only evidence for climate change, (b) this isn't even the only evidence for the "hockey-stick" uptrend, and (c) your criticisms have already been addressed (by, for example, RealClimate).

The problem isn't that you're questioning scientific consensus; questioning what you're told is great. The problem is that you're putting utter certainty in one position on a complex issue based on one opinion on one piece of evidence for one facet of that issue. That's not a rational approach.

1. The “utter certainty” you speak of exists only in the sense that religious fanatics feel “utter certainty” that everyone who doesn’t submit to their dogma is going to hell.

2. The fraudulent methods used by Mann et al. are typical of the methods used in the global warming literature in general. In particular, the use of “proxy” data as a stand-in for actual temperature data, and the conventions for manipulating those data to produce the desired outcome, are the precisely the kind of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo that gave rise to the description “lies, damn lies, and statistics.” None of it is scientifically sound. All of it is political activism disguised as science.

3. The fact that Mann et al were able to publish such a pseudo-scientific fraud in a publication as prestigious as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science shows the extent to which the peer review process has been subverted when it comes to global warming. The IPCC is the Enron of science: the auditors are part of the scam.

4. What the global warming alarmists are doing is not only morally repugnant, it is downright criminal. It is the equivalent of shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre.

There's no question that the post WWII crowd strove mightily to rebuild following the true end of the Great Depression. This struggle made tremendous use of cheap and irreplaceable oil, so when the low lying fruit exhausted itself, the tar sands (promised long ago) became the last refuge. Trouble is, the external costs (pollution, development and treatment/refining) as well as the opportunity costs (going 'green') are now too imposing to ignore either financially or politically/philosophically. We see the event horizon - we experienced a bit of it when oil prices spiked at $150.

The argument/rational for peeling away from the 'old but true' ways is made even more compelling if one sees the current financial crisis through the prism of "Freedom 55" or any other quick fix based on "irrational exuberance", incl. "put a tiger in your tank" or similar "modern life" attribute. It's the resources, stupid! is my contribution, as well as an ongoing research blog for alternative energy and infrastructure rebuilding.

Standing still and hoping that things will blow over is the wrong approach in that the time to diversify away from oil is now (actually yesterday). If we use oil subsidies for peeling away instead, we can at least hope to redeem some of the wasted time.

I noticed you signed this thing.

With all due respect, did you stop to think about the actual effects of a plan like the Green Shift: I have calculated using the elasticities of price and income that it will actually increase CO2 emissions due to the income effect. Click here.

While I do agree with a shift from income to consumption taxes, and that they are likely to lower the distortionary effect of income taxes, I am not sure if they will result in a CO2 reduction (providing that is even necessary).

So linking the price increase to CO2 reduction is foolish, especially when you are intending to lead to public to thinking it could result in GHG emissions when there is little evidence to show it does. Ironically many European businesses have managed to weasel their way out of paying the carbon taxes.

Funny how economists all agree on this scientific issue, yet climate scientists are busy contradicting each others.

Next, 230 biologists will sign a petition on how to fix the financial markets. They will, no doubt, all agree.

Only in the minds of uninformed sceptics are climate scientists very busy substantively contradicting each other. There is much agreement that raising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will lead to warming, and that continuing to raise the rate of increase in carbon dioxide emissions is very dangerous.

Canada's position on Climate change is stupid and uninformed, and it the fault of Canada's media. It is really incredible that all two of our national newspapers think we should elect a majority conservative government, which will then help (hinder?) in negotiating a binding treaty in 2009 that cannot fail without dire consequences. The Globe thinks Harper will learn about it on the job. He doesn't have long to learn, and he's never shown that he can incorporate the advice of others into his decisions on any subject. His substantive analysis of Kyoto was that it was "a socialist plot": that tells you alot about the quality of his thinking. The Globe has failed to even mention to Canadians that the next government will be responsible for negotiating one of the most important treaties in its history, Canada's position is right now a big secret. Pravda could not do a better job in covering this issue than the Globe.

Get ready for a massive brain drain from Canada again if Harper is elected. What scientist would want to live in a country where science is disappeared from the conduits of public discussion if it isn't compatible with Conservative doctrine?

crf, you have everything almost exactly backwards.

Man-made global warming is certainly not proven!

It is the global warming alarmists who stifle honest scientific debate!

And if Harper called global warming alarmism a socialist plot, that does indeed tell me a lot about the quality of his thinking. It tells me he is smarter than I thought!

But don’t take my word for it. Let me quote Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT and one of the lead authors of the 2001 IPCC Report.

"The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating scepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming."

"But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. [italics mine]

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this site

  • Google

Blog powered by Typepad