Professor Mark J. Perry's Blog for Economics and Finance
Posted 11:17 PM Post Link
Links to this post
Quite a big lie by one particular politician who profited greatly from the myth.
Now all you have to do is get the rest of the cult to recognize the fraud. Good luck with that. They're still talking about the hockey stick graph, which was shown to be wrong years ago.
Steve writes:“Quite a big lie by one particular politician who profited greatly from the myth.”Surely Uncle Al will be returning all his ill begotten loot to the municipalities doing snow removal.
This of course begs the question,'are we going to get the tax dollars back that were wasted on this scam?'...Here's a couple of examples:Lawmakers' Global-Warming Trip Hit Tourist Hot SpotsCongressional Trip to Copenhagen
Now for a bit of entertainment...Tim Blair reports in the Australian Daily Telegraph the following:SCEPTICISM STREETS THE FIELDRunning at Naracoorte yesterday, the beautifully-named Globalwarmnsceptic won by six lengths in her first-ever start: Reports Jack Lacton, this site’s senior turf analyst: “Your humble correspondent had a lazy $50 on, picking up $415 and, in the process, making more money by investing in global warming scepticism than has been made from the tens of billions invested so far in so-called clean technologies.”
Funny how they are still sticking to their guns. Lots of people have lots of capital invested in the myth. I love how 15 years of no warming is a blip and not significant, but the whole theory of anthropogenic warming is based on just 30 years of warming. That is not a blip, that is the most significant increase in all human history and proves we are destroying the earth with all our technology and toasters and elastic waistbands and other newfangled gadgets. Al Gore wants to sacrifice a virgin to the volcano gods to stop the forces of nature, and we are finally getting a glimpse behind the curtain, to mix entirely different but apt metaphors.
One possible explanation of the lack of global warming is that the sun has gone fairly quiet, like it did during the little ice age in the maunder minimum of the 1700s. (When various parts of Europe froze a lot more than recently). It does suggest that an awful lot is not known about climate and the driving forces that contribute to change. An interesting quote from the solar variation page of Wikipedia follows"A simple model based on emulating harmonics by multiplying the basic 11-year cycle by powers of 2 produced results similar to Holocene behavior. Extrapolation suggests a gradual cooling during the next few centuries with intermittent minor warmups and a return to near Little Ice Age conditions within the next 500 years. "So the question now becomes what may happen in 1000 years, which realistically none of us or our children or grandchildren need worry to much about. (The net present value of something 1000 years from now with a non zero discount rate is effectivly zero)
Lyle, the problem with that theory is that it would mean the temperature was beyond our control, and therefore not subject to regulation by a government. Can't have that :)
Marko,If you keep your eye on the prize, it's not hard to see why this cudgell is not about to be dropped.
Lyle,Is Wikipedia really reliable after this editor?
"Is Wikipedia really reliable after this editor?"...Thank you QT...I was looking for that very article...
In this particular case we do know that the sun exhibits 11 year cycles, and some have greater intensity than others i.e. sometimes there are fewer sunspots than other times, the Maunder Minimum being one example. Since all the piece suggests is that the cycles could phase in to produce a long period of few sunspots like the maunder minimum it seems rational from the outset. I agree Wikipedia is not to be read uncritically but what media should, even the Britinnica has axes to grind. When what is stated seems to make sense then use it. We do know that there was at least in Europe a little ice age, with hints elesewhere. If it happened once it could happen again, and there does seem to be a correlation between sunspot numbers and the little ice age. Now the GW folks will say that the impact of CO2 is so much bigger, but that is definilty a matter of opinion. Further the critical issue is that the natural state of the earth long term is a warmer state (see Miocene Mesozoic etc). There are period ice ages caused by factors that to use a geological term "are not well understood" (Which could apply to the whole GW issue). If you believe the sun is more variable than our current very short time snapshot of its behavior suggests than it follows that a little ice age could happen fairly soon, and likley in the next 100,000 years or so a real ice age.
"Funny how they are still sticking to their guns. Lots of people have lots of capital invested in the myth."Not that hard to believe, when you account for the fact that AGW for most ppl is a religion, and not a science. It would be the same among catholic worshippers, priests, and others of the faith if the Pope himself came out and said, "well...maybe we were wrong about the whole God thing." So many ppl have built their careers and, more importantly, their lives and value systems around this belief in AGW. It will likely take a lot more proof to get them to reverse their position than they needed to buy into AGW in the first place.
*Yes we can* say that global warming was merely a floor show for our readers; but it was, however, a wolf-fear of wolves to come. Has the war game of Global-W prepared us for the real danger now looming on our human horizon?What real catastrophe of overpopulation will soon make us scream out "Kommen der Wolf."?Considering the time lag between sterilization and population shrinkage, do we now need more planning for universal sterilization of all newborn humans?U B JudgeU B Thurgood
"Overpopulation" is only possible if food and other products are under produced. If we let governments run the food, medical and shelter industries, then we will have "overpopulation" no matter how many people there are. The free market can handle any number of people, and as living standards improve, birth rates will go down. Give it a break.
Marko,You don't actually expect that this guy has read Julian Simon do you? Like a lot of folks, he/she never got the memo that Erlich's Population Bomb and the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth were both completely flawed in their analysis. Why let facts stand in the way of a good argument? Funnily enough, many folks are unfamiliar with the history of human rights abuses perpetrated in the name of population control. Makes unpleasant although enlightening reading. As the old adage goes, "be careful what you wish for"
Post a Comment
Create a Link
Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan.
Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University near Washington, D.C. In addition, he holds an MBA degree in finance from the Curtis L. Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. In addition to a faculty appointment at the University of Michigan-Flint, Perry is also a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.
View my complete profile