Damn denier!

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Damn denier!

  1. duncanm

    .. and as predicted (planned, I susect) by Mr Adams – the twitterati go crazy with ‘science denier, science denier, pants on fire’.

    They seemed to have missed the jab at economic models, not science.

    (HT wattsupwiththat btw)

  2. Tezza

    Adams is very sharp, and he nicely highlights that much of what is asserted to be the ‘settled science’ behind the economic policies for ‘de-carbonisation’ is actually economic modelling, not at base general circulation models of the oceans or the atmosphere. Indeed, the scenarios being run through general circulation models are themselves principally economic scenarios of how rapidly real living standards in poor countries converge towards rich country levels, and how energy intensive is the economic growth that gets developing countries to that convergence.

    The late, great, Ian Castles was very insightful on all of this.

    If it were more widely understood that the allegedly settled science is at base ‘economic science’, the ‘science is settled’ crowd would be feeling very queasy.

  3. arrrr

    but, but… “the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time”?

  4. Confused Old Misfit

    “and ignore the ones that look wrong to us” – as scientifically antithetical a statement as one could wish.

  5. arrrr

    on a more serious note, I’m against doing anything about global warming because:
    1) The economic models to justify spending billions get there by having an unrealistically low discount rate of “nominal GDP growth”, i.e. spending money now is equal to spending money in 50 years’ time.
    2) Prisoner’s dilemma. That is, any country that subverts emission targets wins economically to the tune of billions of dollars
    3) I’m long human intelligence and think that if there is a problem then we’ll manage to come up with cheaper and more efficient ways of dealing with it. For example, geo-engineering.

  6. Rafe

    It helps to read the Cook et al 97.1% consensus paper and find that the consensus that they found has 2 items.
    1. There has been some warming.
    2. There is a human contribution to warming.
    No “denier” in the real world denies 1.
    Hardly any skeptics deny a human contribution if only by the heat island effect in cuties..
    Nothing about the smount

  7. Rafe

    The amount of warming, the role of CO2 or the need to be alarmed.
    The method of the research is crap but taking the results straight shows no consensus about the need to limit emissions or to be alarmed.

  8. Motelier

    I see Scott Adams is going deeper here.

    What if I don’t trust the economic models?

    Yes there is a tie as highlighted above. Both models involve more gubberment spending to “save” the ———.

    The money has to come from somewhere.

    PS, always been a fan of Dilbert. One gent I worked with honestly believed the strip as about the production office we were in at the time.

  9. Jannie

    With CAGW it has always been about economics, one reason Marxists are all believers. The theory results in a permanent tax on an invisible, tasteless gas. Its money for nothing, and a breeze to administer.

  10. Robber Baron

    CAGW is the yin to “Stimulus” spending yang.

    CAGW saves the planet by destroying millions of private sector jobs; “Stimulus” creates and or saves millions of Government jobs. Statism in perfection.

  11. Bad Samaritan

    Rafe (10.33pm). “the heat island effect in cuties..”

    Whether that’s a typo or not, I’m using it!

  12. Rabz

    Says it all, really. The precise reason why I’ve never swallowed any of this preposterous alarmist garbage.

    Those sanctimonious, hypocritical idiots just never cease being wrong.

  13. Rabz

    LOL – da “scientist” also bears a resemblance to a certain Perfesser Mikey Mann.

  14. “and ignore the ones that look wrong to us” – as scientifically antithetical a statement as one could wish.

    It’s funny because it’s true.

  15. brennan

    Scott is right on as usual.
    Did anyone else think the ‘scientist’ looks like Michael Mann?

  16. .

    Tezza
    #2381639, posted on May 16, 2017 at 9:35 pm
    Adams is very sharp, and he nicely highlights that much of what is asserted to be the ‘settled science’ behind the economic policies for ‘de-carbonisation’ is actually economic modelling, not at base general circulation models of the oceans or the atmosphere.

    Is it really? Remember when the Commonwealth Treasury WOULDN’T RELEASE THEIR MODELLING OF THE CARBON TAX/ETS ALA GILLARD?

    Cue “hand made forecasts” and other boilerplate nonsense.

    There are some climate models used too and they are also garbage.

  17. .

    arrrr
    #2381663, posted on May 16, 2017 at 10:00 pm

    Well said matey.

  18. Pingback: Damn denier! | Catallaxy Files | Cranky Old Crow

  19. Mother Lode

    This cartoon has jabs at both the economic modelling and the climate modelling, but the punchline is about the economic models – people who doubt them are accused of being against science.

    But the ‘ignore the ones that look wrong to us’ is the more sublime mockery.

Leave a Reply

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