Jacoby's Latest Climate Debunkery

re: Jacoby's Latest Climate Debunkery

Dr. Manhattan — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:25:56 GMT

The debate is quite simple, I still cannot figure what the fuss is all about. FACT : The alarmists' claims are grounded on climate models and little else. You cannot "observe" that carbon dioxide is impacting the atmosphere, you need figure it out of mathematical models parametrized to fit the modeler's preferences.

Once you figured this out, you start to inquire about climate models. Then you find out that mathematical models are not better at predicting the climate than economic models are at predicting the economy. Eeven most alarmists will not pretend that mathematical models are very reliable tools.

So the question you need to ask yourself is : are you sure you accept to doom western civilization in the name of worthless models?

re: Jacoby's Latest Climate Debunkery

David Roberts — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:32:28 GMT

David, good on you for taking the time to debunk this stuff (better you than me -- it's endless).

But don't be so quick to accept the scary economic cost figures the same conservatives are throwing around:

www.grist.org/.../2009-06-26-overestimate-costs-climate

re: Jacoby's Latest Climate Debunkery

Pam-I-Am — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:30:56 GMT

Concurring with Michael, using the suggestion of Lindzen not-being-credible-wink-wink as a premise without supporting the slap with anything tangible simple feeds the notion that liberals consider name-calling a substitute for math skills.

Also, jump past the did he get the month right thing -- it again perpetuates the liberal, "I'm right he's wrong minutia, nyanee nyannee poo poo in place of facts" protocal -- and get yourself to a larger and more telling awareness that weighs an MIT staple like Lindzen against a paunchy post-relevant two time grad school drop out in search of a niche like Al Gore. If we're to be taken seriously we need to wake up and smell the agenda.

On the plus side, saving face when the facts are dropping all around you is best saved for a seasoned politico.

Here comes the dreaded math part. There is a cost-benefit analysis here that seems to be the elephant in the livingroom for many: if the cost of producing electricity/gas/fuel oil/wind power/energy ends up 50 - 90% higher, therefore exceeding most people's ability to buy it ... won't that be the same as not having it at all, and at that point why would we need a planet if we couldn't sustain a way to live on it?

Hello?

Certainly it was unintentional but you also seriously underplayed the number of dissenting scientists at the Polish Academy of Science event. People should Google that and get a look at what was said, by whom, and in what, (spiraling) numbers.

Lastly, continue to call Chicken Little if it makes for good sound bites and votes since you've apparently successfully completed the training for that -- but do be aware that when you finally wake up, you will feel so used.

re: Jacoby's Latest Climate Debunkery

Michael Pahre — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:26:32 GMT

David,

Claude Allegre won the Crafoord Prize in 1986 for his work in geology. That is one big frigging deal of a prize. It is awarded on a rotating basis for fields that do not have a Nobel Prize (such as astronomy and mathematics), and is considered to be that subject's equivalent of the Nobel Prize.

You should not reject out-of-hand somebody like him who has legitimacy in science evidenced by a prize like the Crafoord. You should instead stick to debunking one-by-one his ideas on climate change that you consider wacky.