Is it time to start dismissing 'economics deniers'?
Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 9 months ago to Science
There was never a time when it was property to accept rejecting science.
"Since publication [of a study showing showing Seattle's minimum wage law costs workers millions of dollars, liberals have given the study hyper-skeptical treatment, claiming to find all sorts of shortcomings with its methodology, data set, and so on. "
Hyper-skeptical. Let's just call it denying reality because of what they wish were true.
It sort-of explains denial of the human contribution to global warming. With a minimum wage law, it's just a question of policy. A policy some people thought helped the working poor actually hurts them. With global warming, the science is showing we didn't have as much net production as we thought because of the long-term consequences of the energy the runs most production. That's not a policy. It's just out-and-out bad news. The news is that in making something we broke something else. The incentives are enormous to find any way to deny it. It's trillions of dollars of economic output. The drive for wishful thinking is so strong that people will say it must be a conspiracy because millions of dollars are used studying the problem, flat out ignoring the trillions (millions of millions) affected negatively by the news.
If the consequence of a finding are unacceptable, that's a reason to be on guard against wishful thinking. Part of the mind looks for ways to rationalize using all sorts of fallacies to deny the bad news and convince itself that reality is more consistent with what's desirable. The current evidence showing wage floors take wealth from the working poor suggests we simply stop using force on suppliers and purchasers of labor. The current evidence showing human activities are changing the climate in costly ways suggests we have a complex problem of figuring out whose activities are stealing from whom. We'd much rather find our activities don't cost one another anything, but reality does not care what we want. The fact that most of our production appears to be incurring a cost on people in the future is tough pill to swallow. If some people are compelled to deny wage floors don't work, I can understand why people are compelled to engage in irrational wishful thinking on the human influence on global warming.
"Since publication [of a study showing showing Seattle's minimum wage law costs workers millions of dollars, liberals have given the study hyper-skeptical treatment, claiming to find all sorts of shortcomings with its methodology, data set, and so on. "
Hyper-skeptical. Let's just call it denying reality because of what they wish were true.
It sort-of explains denial of the human contribution to global warming. With a minimum wage law, it's just a question of policy. A policy some people thought helped the working poor actually hurts them. With global warming, the science is showing we didn't have as much net production as we thought because of the long-term consequences of the energy the runs most production. That's not a policy. It's just out-and-out bad news. The news is that in making something we broke something else. The incentives are enormous to find any way to deny it. It's trillions of dollars of economic output. The drive for wishful thinking is so strong that people will say it must be a conspiracy because millions of dollars are used studying the problem, flat out ignoring the trillions (millions of millions) affected negatively by the news.
If the consequence of a finding are unacceptable, that's a reason to be on guard against wishful thinking. Part of the mind looks for ways to rationalize using all sorts of fallacies to deny the bad news and convince itself that reality is more consistent with what's desirable. The current evidence showing wage floors take wealth from the working poor suggests we simply stop using force on suppliers and purchasers of labor. The current evidence showing human activities are changing the climate in costly ways suggests we have a complex problem of figuring out whose activities are stealing from whom. We'd much rather find our activities don't cost one another anything, but reality does not care what we want. The fact that most of our production appears to be incurring a cost on people in the future is tough pill to swallow. If some people are compelled to deny wage floors don't work, I can understand why people are compelled to engage in irrational wishful thinking on the human influence on global warming.
If you want to discuss global warming then make an argument don't just declare it to be a fact.
We're like an alcoholic I knew who wondered if soda pop was causing his liver disease because science isn't ever settled and those doctors and researchers get paid to get to the answer he didn't want. He knew what answer he wanted and rationalized away everything else.
If you're right it will be a highly desirable discovery and you will have beaten your colleagues to it.
There are a number of computer models which produce a variety of results depending on the assumptions you make which get cherry picked and hyped. There is no consensus even among the people who have a consensus.
There were images recently sent around the internet talking about what the planet's coastlines would look like if all the ice melted -- even though NONE of the projected scenarios would do that.
Because, even if CO2 is causing warming it's not really going to be enough to cause major disruption. Even the IPCC indicates that it will be less economic disruption from other sources.
But still you talk about everyone denying the nature of facts. With no facts.
I consider this denying the facts. CO2 is causing warming, and it will be costly.
Images sent around the Internet have nothing to do with it.
When you talk about the computer models, I think you're saying we are not very sure how much warming human activities cause, how much of it is part of the natural cycle of glacial maxima/minima. My lay understanding of the science is you're correct about that. .
What will be the mitigating factors, the cold of winter is tougher on people than heat, how much hotter will it have to get before warming isn't a benefit?
Science is about numbers and facts, not faith.
Yet you don't seem to have spent very much time looking into the various facts. This mirrors much of reporting because it talks about how certain everyone is without ever saying exactly what all these people are supposed to be certain about.
There are people talking about the end of life on earth due to this and NONE of the science supports such extreme events. It's all of the "tipping point" variety which essentially says at some unmeasurable and unpredictable point everything changes and the old math doesn't work anymore. That's faith, not science.
When there is a "consensus" on global warming if you dig down it turns out that what the consensus is is that there is probably some effect on the environment by humans. Hell, I think so too. But when you start making ever more significant predictions the consensus fades.
And up to a point warming is better but no one is going to give you billions of dollars to study things getting better so everyone focuses on the horrors so they can get the cash.
The sad reality is that while this is going on, some real science is as well and the solar cycle science is looking more convincing all the time.
It's going to get cold.
Of course, by then the socialists will have followed the pattern described by Orwell in '1984' and rectify he past to show that CO2 is causing it to get colder and that they always said so -- they'll even point to the stories in the 1970's about how CO2 was going to make the planet cold.
And, amazingly, the solution will be to de-industrialize and give the government lots of money.
these kakistocrats employ to halt human progression. Just like the term "liberal progressive" they are neither liberal nor progressive.
It's a cold wind that blows against the empire.
I really see what you're saying, but resist the urge to see what I say as a mirror of what someone else says. I do see what you're saying because there is some good reporting on science and then there's some sensational or politicized reporting that describes vague, sometimes apocalyptic, fears unrelated to real science.
They also talk about "certainty" is because non-scientific people have trouble understanding this is the data we have today. Non-scientific people might be confused that science develops theories and wants by its nature to find new evidence to topple them. It's so opposite from other areas like law or politics where you develop "a theory of the case" and then look for evidence to support it in an adversarial process.
"no one is going to give you billions of dollars to study things getting better"
The world economy, something on the order of 10^14 USD, runs partly on activities thought to contribute to global warming. People can and do spend millions each year to confuse the issue.
What warming?
The pause in rising temps now is 19 years and counting. Massive ice build in Greenland.
Glaciers growing in California. Blizzards in May.
The Grand Solar Minimum is here and the world will cool going forward untill it warms again with a pick up in solar activity, long after most of us are gone.
The argument is based on saying that because A is wrong, then B is wrong.
Just considering climate, there are no facts, no evidence, and no reasoning
presented. There are two kinds of statement, errors and drivel.
The reference to Richard Muller’s and his 2012 essay, “The Conversion of a
Climate Change Skeptic is grossly misleading.
In 2011 Muller said:
"I was never a skeptic ... I never felt that pointing out mistakes qualified me
to be called a climate skeptic."
and in 2008:
"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is
real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but
he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."
and in 2003:
"Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate
suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to
be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and
detrimental effects on global climate."
His students at Berkeley said:
"Arrogant, disorganized, and confusing. His lectures turned into tangents,"
..etc.
There are many sources on Richard Muller. If you just want one it is:
https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/04/th...
Judith Curry is one of those very few who may correctly be called a climate
scientist.
The hero of the Richmond Times Dispatch article is Richard Muller.
He was, supposedly, a critic then after study, embraced climate change alarmism.
In a previous post I gave the refutation- Muller is a long time alarmist.
This fact squelches the article.
This fact is evidence of misrepresentation or worse.
In this thread there is mention of 'data'.
Here is what a proper study concludes about official global warming data-
"Not a valid representation of reality. … Totally Inconsistent With credible temperature data”
Each new version of GAST, in which Muller was involved, has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming trend linear trend over its entire history.
NASA, NOAA, HADLEY , same same.
Recent temperature records are consistently adjusted upwards, past records downwards, result,
faked data shows warming where real data shows no trend.
-
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news...
new-report-not-a-valid-representation-of-reality-totally-inconsistent-with-
credible-temperature-data_07142017
also
-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07...
new-report-not-reality-totally-inconsistent-
The link to the paper is-
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.c...
On this topic, I'm still on the fence. But, that's only because I've not dedicated my own time to research it firsthand, has I've had to do with other topics. Only so much time in the day and I'm a busy man. I can't turn on the talking heads on tv and rely on the information they give us on this. That has been established.
I think we live in different world. This is an amazing age where humankind is conquering problems and realizing things people dreamed about-- in almost ALL areas: catching crime, preventing crime, stopping wars, stopping spousal abuse, child abuse, animal abuse, access to information, practical ability for the average person to follow her dreams without regard to her background or how she looks. This is an amazing time for humankind.
"can't turn on the talking heads on TV"
I definitely know what you're saying about ignoring talking heads on TV. I see them on the TVs in the gym. They're usually a joke.