• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Economics, Climate Change Issues and Global Salvationism

Drooper

Unregistered
D
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
1,982
Every now and then I read something that I feel I have to share. The following was a speech given by David Henderson, a globally pre-eminant economist, who in recent years has highlighted some glaring shortcomings in the analysis produced for and used by the IPCC.

His thoughts highlight wide ranging implications of the effective sequestration of public policy by increasingly powerful non-democratic and mostly poliltically extreme organisations (he coins the phrase "global salvationists"). Nowhere does this manifest itself more glaringly than in the context of the IPCC and the issue of climate change.

It is well worth the time, but if you ar elike me it will leave you pretty depressed about the prospects for the future development and welfare of humanity.

Economics, Climate Change Issues and Global Salvationism
 
Since it was posted here by you I expected him to say that the global climate isn't changing, or, if it is, it is not caused by man.

I'm glad to see he didn't. :)
 
Bjorn said:
Since it was posted here by you I expected him to say that the global climate isn't changing, or, if it is, it is not caused by man.

I'm glad to see he didn't. :)
Click to expand...

Where have I ever said that the global climate isn't changing or if it is it isn't caused by man?
 
Drooper said:
Where have I ever said that the global climate isn't changing
Click to expand...
I don't think you have.

or if it is it isn't caused by man?
Click to expand...
I just got the impression from other posts of yours, like:

It is the AGW loby that are steadfast in maintaining that the global climate is stable and only disrupted by human influence.
Click to expand...
Or maybe your sig did the trick?
All the experts agree that global warming is real, caused by humans and an imminent threat to the world, right?? errrr...
Click to expand...
Obviously I got confused. Do you believe that the global climate is changing and that it's caused by man?
 
Bjorn said:
I don't think you have.

I just got the impression from other posts of yours, like:

Or maybe your sig did the trick?
Obviously I got confused. Do you believe that the global climate is changing and that it's caused by man?
Click to expand...


The quote you offered there is clear. The climate has always changed and always will. That's what it does.

Man influences the climate. Always has always will.

The trick is, how much is man currently producing climate forcing agents and to what effect.

I say we just don't know enough to tell how much the climate has been changing recently, and whether it is benign or not.

We also don't know what proportion is the product of human influence and what is natural.

So as those quotes clearly show (including my sig.), I don't think we can be certain yet how much the climat eis changing and in what manner, how much influence man is having in that and I dispute the claim that there is a acceptable universal concensus.

The upshot of all this is that I think it is lunacy to pursue the extremly costly policy prescriptions that are being pushed, which would have adverse effects on human welfare and quality of life.

I just wanted to clear that up, because anyone who doesn't "toe the line" on climate change is usually disimissed as a nut, or a paid lacky to some sinsister corporate conspiracy or tagged with an epithet like "denier".
 
Drooper said:
... the effective sequestration of public policy by increasingly powerful non-democratic and mostly poliltically extreme organisations (he coins the phrase "global salvationists").
Click to expand...
Strap me. the world is being taken over by extremists. Again. Or still. All that spreading democracy doesn't seem to be helping, forces at some political extreme can overwhelm any amount of that. Any extreme, any subject, any time, the forces of the extreme are always in the driving-seat. Just consider the Stalinist hell that is the daily life of a climate-scientist. Or evolutionary scientist. Or whatever the subject might be (FDR was a Communist, you know, took his orders from Moscow. It was in all the papers at the time).

On the other hand, the fact that a term somewhat more extreme than "do-gooder" has been coined doesn't really impress. Still, glad to hear that even the most extreme denialists have acceptd the fact of human-influenced climate-change. The argument seems to have moved on to the economics. The "It's not happening" and "It's happening but for other reasons" stages have passed, we're on to the "Doing nothing is best anyway" argument.

I'm not optimistic about "the prospects for the future development and welfare of humanity", but not because of eco-fascists. More because of the common stupidity, short-sightedness and credulity of the species.
 
Re: Re: Economics, Climate Change Issues and Global Salvationism

CapelDodger said:
Strap me. the world is being taken over by extremists. Again. Or still. All that spreading democracy doesn't seem to be helping, forces at some political extreme can overwhelm any amount of that. Any extreme, any subject, any time, the forces of the extreme are always in the driving-seat. Just consider the Stalinist hell that is the daily life of a climate-scientist. Or evolutionary scientist. Or whatever the subject might be (FDR was a Communist, you know, took his orders from Moscow. It was in all the papers at the time).

On the other hand, the fact that a term somewhat more extreme than "do-gooder" has been coined doesn't really impress. Still, glad to hear that even the most extreme denialists have acceptd the fact of human-influenced climate-change. The argument seems to have moved on to the economics. The "It's not happening" and "It's happening but for other reasons" stages have passed, we're on to the "Doing nothing is best anyway" argument.

I'm not optimistic about "the prospects for the future development and welfare of humanity", but not because of eco-fascists. More because of the common stupidity, short-sightedness and credulity of the species.
Click to expand...

Don't you have anything of intellectual merit to bring to this thread?
 
CapelDodger said:
Hiroshima always had radiation. So what?

[/b]Bollocks. Maximum 8,000 years, and that's still contentious. About the time of early rice cultivation. [/B]
Click to expand...

Ditto...
 
Drooper said:
His thoughts highlight wide ranging implications of the effective sequestration of public policy by increasingly powerful non-democratic and mostly poliltically extreme organisations ...
Click to expand...
It's impossible to treat this kind of nonsense intellectually. It runs so absolutely counter to the world we live in.

What are these politically extreme organisations that you see as so powerful? How is their power increasing? What is their power based on? Are they visible or invisible?

If it's the Cat Conspiracy youre concerned about, they want a warmer world and are doing everything they can to promote global warming, not warn people against it. And it's people like you who are their dupes and mouthpieces. Who else could be pulling your strings - the energy industry? Who do you think controls that?
 
Any comment why we should listen to an economist regarding climate change, rather than an actual climatologist?
 
EvilYeti said:
Any comment why we should listen to an economist regarding climate change, rather than an actual climatologist?
Click to expand...

Any comment why you should actually address the comments?
 
Drooper said:
So as those quotes clearly show (including my sig.), I don't think we can be certain yet how much the climat eis changing and in what manner, how much influence man is having in that and I dispute the claim that there is a acceptable universal concensus.

The upshot of all this is that I think it is lunacy to pursue the extremly costly policy prescriptions that are being pushed, which would have adverse effects on human welfare and quality of life.
Click to expand...
As an amateur in the field, it is my understanding that man-induced climatic changes take time. In other words, the changes we see today might be caused by something we did (or rather did "wrong") a decade or some decades ago.

What we do now might have greater effects (since we do more of it) in a decade or two from now.

Even if we don't know for sure if this is true - even if we only wonder if it could be so - isn't this the time to take precautions in case we are on the wrong track? While we do some more research?

I just wanted to clear that up, because anyone who doesn't "toe the line" on climate change is usually disimissed as a nut, or a paid lacky to some sinsister corporate conspiracy or tagged with an epithet like "denier".
Click to expand...
I don't know about that. It seems to be the other way around on this forum.
 
Drooper said:
... tagged with an epithet like "denier".
Click to expand...
So on the one hand we have an epithet ("denier", more commonly denialist), and on the other we have a coinage ("global salvationist"). Evidence of bias, I think, and very clumsily concealed.

Making any progress on my questions? If you can't answer, just say so, we'll move on. (I don't mean the stuff about the Cat Conspiracy, that was just a bit of fun. It's not as if you're going to blab anything about that on an open forum after the kind of conditioning you've been through.)
 
a_unique_person said:
As far as I can tell, it is the economists who are on a holy war of global salvation.
Click to expand...
It's this whole externality thing, it gives them the horrors. At the root of most economists is a little boy (yes, boy) who intended to be an accountant. (I was that boy.) Too interesting for that, and too lazy or nervous for banking, they hit on economics. It's all much the same thing, except for banking, which is cool on account of the drugs.

Anyhoo, they shy instinctively away from externalities back into their comfortable world where everything can be fixed, and fixed digitally. It's like the legal world, but more hypocritical. They find their way to a set of numbers that somehow can be interpreted to suggest that we forget all about it.

Scientists, on the whole, are adventurers. When they see evidence of serious global warming they think "The world's going to get bent! Oh joy! That I should be living to watch it bend and work out why it bent just that way!". Then morality kicks in, not to mention many of them being parents, and they feel they at least have to warn people and try to prevent it. Otherwise they'll feel awful about enjoying a whole bunch of experiments they could never have set up themselves.

So it's generally economists and statisticians - don't get me going on statisticians - who crop up on the denialist side of the balanced debate.
 
CapelDodger said:

At the root of most economists is a little boy (yes, boy) who intended to be an accountant.
Click to expand...
It's just after ten on a Sunday night and I'd like to optimize my resources. But the self-regulating mathematical intricacies involved in a bid on this never opened Fonzies Favorites eight-track tape are beginning to make me wonder.

What's up with the equilibrium of a market pushing ◊◊◊◊◊◊ technology that pretty much died 30 years ago?
 
Bjorn said:
As an amateur in the field, it is my understanding that man-induced climatic changes take time. In other words, the changes we see today might be caused by something we did (or rather did "wrong") a decade or some decades ago.

What we do now might have greater effects (since we do more of it) in a decade or two from now.

Even if we don't know for sure if this is true - even if we only wonder if it could be so - isn't this the time to take precautions in case we are on the wrong track? While we do some more research?

I don't know about that. It seems to be the other way around on this forum.
Click to expand...


Have you read this thread?
 
CapelDodger said:
So on the one hand we have an epithet ("denier", more commonly denialist), and on the other we have a coinage ("global salvationist"). Evidence of bias, I think, and very clumsily concealed.
Click to expand...

One is clearly derogatory widely applied (even by supposed , with sinister overtones to its more widely used context. You know the one.

The other is relatively descriptive and simply an oratory device use by one man.


CapelDodger said:
Making any progress on my questions? If you can't answer, just say so, we'll move on. (I don't mean the stuff about the Cat Conspiracy, that was just a bit of fun. It's not as if you're going to blab anything about that on an open forum after the kind of conditioning you've been through.)
Click to expand...

Don't be daft. That approach only works for Claus.

If you want to make a comment, why don't you prepare a rebuttal of the opinions outlined in Henderson's speech? Henderson is someone who is in a unique position to observe official policy formulation and the deficiencies in the operation of the IPCC (he identified a glaring one). Present your views one why you think he is mistaken.

And you can tone down on the personal elements as well. If you have an opinion or view, please air it. If you think you have formulated a prsonal view or opinion of someone you know virtually nothing about, I suggest you keep them to yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom