253 replies to this topic

[Frog79]

Quote

When I visited the House of Lords' minister, Lord Marland, at the  Climate Change Department a couple of years ago, I asked him and the  Department's chief number-cruncher, Professor David Mackay (neither a  climate scientist nor an economist, of course) to show me the  Department's calculations detailing just how much "global warming" that  might otherwise occur this century would be prevented by the $30 billion  per year that the Department was committed to spend between 2011 and  2050 – $1.2 trillion in all.

There was a horrified silence. The birds stopped singing. The  Minister adjusted his tie. The Permanent Secretary looked at his watch.  Professor Mackay looked as though he wished the plush sofa into which he  was disappearing would swallow him up entirely.

Eventually, in a very small voice, the Professor said, "Er, ah, mphm,  that is, oof, arghh, we've never done any such calculation." The  biggest tax increase in human history had been based not upon a mature  scientific assessment followed by a careful economic appraisal, but  solely upon blind faith. I said as much. "Well," said the Professor,  "maybe we'll get around to doing the calculations next October."

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/136587/

Ho hum.  Yet more proof that "global warming" policy is not based on rigorous science but is a pagan religion (code named "The Cause" by alarmist scientists in Climategate emails) promoted by leftist elites committed to their vision of social justice, science be damned.  

Empirical evidence?   We don't need no stinking evidence - just give us your money, please.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 08 February 2012 - 02:31 PM, said:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/136587/

Ho hum.  Yet more proof that "global warming" policy is not based on rigorous science but is a pagan religion (code named "The Cause" by alarmist scientists in Climategate emails) promoted by leftist elites committed to their vision of social justice, science be damned.  

Empirical evidence?   We don't need no stinking evidence - just give us your money, please.

Alarmist blog? Or primary ref in the literature? "Proof" in any way?

You know the call.  WUWT is in no way a peer reviewed primary source covering the empirical research.  Also "Lord" Monckton is not a "lord" so from the byline it's rather short on empirical facts.

[Frog79]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 08 February 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Alarmist blog? Or primary ref in the literature? "Proof" in any way?

You know the call.  WUWT is in no way a peer reviewed primary source covering the empirical research.  Also "Lord" Monckton is not a "lord" so from the byline it's rather short on empirical facts.

So can you prove that the govt. did any sort of calculation based on science before they planned to confiscate their peoples' hard earned money?  No?  Thought not.

[fnfreebird]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 08 February 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Alarmist blog? Or primary ref in the literature? "Proof" in any way?

You know the call.  WUWT is in no way a peer reviewed primary source covering the empirical research.  Also "Lord" Monckton is not a "lord" so from the byline it's rather short on empirical facts.

Science doesn't give us any definitive answers.  It only serves to give us the best odds at this current time.

[Frog79]

fnfreebird, on 08 February 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Science doesn't give us any definitive answers.  It only serves to give us the best odds at this current time.

Exactly.  What we do know for sure is that there is no compelling evidence for AGW and that the alarmists have repeatedly lied, hidden data, stonewalled FOIA requests, refused live debates,  manipulated the peer review process, etc.  Fortunately the public and politicians are onto the 'climate change' scam now.

[Duquesne Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 08 February 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

Alarmist blog? Or primary ref in the literature? "Proof" in any way?

You know the call.  WUWT is in no way a peer reviewed primary source covering the empirical research.  Also "Lord" Monckton is not a "lord" so from the byline it's rather short on empirical facts.

The denier love for "Lord" Monckton has always struck me as ironically curious given their fervent criticism of Al Gore.  Apparently politicians do make reliable sources, but if and only if they agree with me.

Tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers?  Meh.  But sympathetic politicians and bloggers are incontrovertible, Newf!  Incontrovertible, I tell you!

[Duquesne Frog]

fnfreebird, on 08 February 2012 - 11:03 PM, said:

Science doesn't give us any definitive answers.  It only serves to give us the best odds at this current time.

True.  I decided long ago that there was no way for me to understand how your brain evaluates that which has veracity and that which does not.

[Duquesne Frog]

Frog79, on 09 February 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

What we do know for sure is that there is no compelling evidence for AGW ...

I assume this comes from the same "fact-based" source that provides the "Planned Parenthood is 97% abortions" argument?

[Frog79]

Duquesne Frog, on 09 February 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

I assume this comes from the same "fact-based" source that provides the "Planned Parenthood is 97% abortions" argument?

Another figment of your warped liberal imagination.  Show me where I ever said that.  Oh, you can't?  Well add this to your impressive list of delusional statements.  You are giving Newf a run for most inaccurate poster here but he has set a high standard that will be tough for you to beat.  I will say this, though, you two have elevated the making of unsubstantiated claims into an art form, lol.

[Duquesne Frog]

http://www.realclima...ta-comparisons/

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Duquesne Frog, on 09 February 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

http://www.realclima...ta-comparisons/

No. No. No, Duq. YOU must never use blog sources. Only F79 is allowed to do that. And in a comparison between Nature and WUWT well Nature is just a biased rag whereas WUWT is the Bible of Truth.

[George F. Will]

Wouldn't you guys rather talk about monetary policy?

[NewfoundlandFrog]

George F. Will, on 09 February 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Wouldn't you guys rather talk about monetary policy?

While my intellectual grandfather--Herbert Simon--actually does have a Nobel in Economics, economics of all fields really is "junk science"!

[George F. Will]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 09 February 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

While my intellectual grandfather--Herbert Simon--actually does have a Nobel in Economics, economics of all fields really is "junk science"!

They don't call it the dismal science for nothing...

[NewfoundlandFrog]

George F. Will, on 09 February 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

They don't call it the dismal science for nothing...

I think he was a Keynesian in his economics work if I remember right.

[Duquesne Frog]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 09 February 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

No. No. No, Duq. YOU must never use blog sources. Only F79 is allowed to do that. And in a comparison between Nature and WUWT well Nature is just a biased rag whereas WUWT is the Bible of Truth.

The distinction (which I know you know but others apparently don't) is that the above blog references and links directly to the data and primary literature ...

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Duquesne Frog, on 09 February 2012 - 02:57 PM, said:

The distinction (which I know you know but others apparently don't) is that the above blog references and links directly to the data and primary literature ...

Yeah. But WUWT links directly to the TRUTH. Who ya' gonna' believe? "Lord" Monckton or your lyin' eyes?

[Frog79]

You can post from junk science blogs but be prepared to have it challenged.  While you are at it, you can tell me where I said " PP is 97% abortions".  Oh yeah - yet another claim you can't back up.  Hey Newf, Duq is starting to challenge you for most factually incompetent poster on the board - quite a feat - but at least he has not tried to calculate confidence intervals on severely autocorrelated data then proudly called himself an expert - yet, lol.

BTW, here is the real data on how wrong the IPCC's predictions have been:



Unlike you guys, I do my own research instead of reading junk blogs.  As you can see, temps in only 21 years since the IPCC AR1 report in 1990 have risen half as fast as IPCC's "best estimate" and have recently fallen completely out of the IPCC's self-imposed confidence intervals.  It will get even worse for you whiny alarmists as temperatures continue to plummet like they have for the last few years.  Glad I could help educate you. :)

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Frog79, on 09 February 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

So what does your junk science link say?   You can post from blogs but be prepared to have it challenged.  While you are at it, you can tell me where I said " PP is 97% abortions".  Oh yeah - yest another claim you can't back up.  Hey Newf, Duq is starting to challenge you for most factually incompetent poster on the board - quite a feat.

BTW, here is the real data on how wrong the IPCC's predictions have been:



Unlike you guys, I do my own research instead of reading junk blogs.  As you can see, temps in only 21 years since the IPCC AR1 report in 1990 have risen half as fast as IPCC's "best estimate" and have recently fallen completely out of the confidence intervals.  It will get even worse for you whiny alarmists as temperatures continue to plummet like they have for the last few years.  Read it and weep!

Already went thru this in rather excruciating detail. Your blog boy used jiggered math to start his IPCC "prediction" from a local max, you may remember. I even worked it out to 6 decimal places for you and included error bars but it was apparently over your head. Also UAH is far from the "best" measure and has had to be constantly corrected. Generally upwards. Finally, even if you were right, the UAH and IPCC low basically track so there is no error worth worrying about. You canot see that "best" and "mean" happen to be the same term.

Don't you get dizzy running in the same circles over and over?

[George F. Will]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 09 February 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

I think he was a Keynesian in his economics work if I remember right.

Then he probably does not have a Nobel...