Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Knowing her, nothing.
That bimbo would fail a third grade science test,
But, Boston U gave her a grad degree in econ.
And she’s demonstrated her expertise in that subject.
Dr. Nordhaus is an economist, NOT a “climate scientist”.
Even the many atmospheric physicists, meteorologists, and climatologists who have weighed in on the “global warming” debate and are skeptical about it are NOT considered “climate scientists”. ONLY the developers and purveyors of computer “climate models” are “climate scientists”!!!!
To my knowledge, not one “climate scientist” has ever won a Nobel Prize for Physics (which is the only appropriate category). Several physical scientists who are “global warming” skeptics HAVE won the Nobel Prize for Physics!!!!
Of course, “global warmist” Al Gore won a Nobel Prize, but for “Peace”! And Dr. Nordhaus won a Nobel Prize for Economics. Whom are we going to believe?
Unless they do something about India, China and those massive cargo ships then saving a few trees in the USA isn’t going to do much.
OAC doesn’t care about the climate as much as she cares about implementing socialism.
What a farce. Spend $20 TRILLION today and maybe, just MAYBE, get $30 trillion of benefits CENTURIES from now.
Economics isn't called "the dismal science" for no reason.
In the real world, a $20 trillion tax would first and foremost line the pockets of politicians, tyrants, caudillos, strong-men, warlords, and despots the world over. The next tranche would be used to buy votes. The remaining trillion would be spent on useless Obama-style "green" energy projects that would all go bankrupt. We'd be impoverished, innovation would stop, unemployment would soar, and the world would plunge into centuries-long depression.
This Nobel-winning climate economist doesn't have a clue how the real world works.
Occasional Cortex doesn’t care what science says.
You cannot teach AOC anything. She is completely ignorant yet is convinced she knows everything.
bkmk
I would love to see the mechanism of how making people pay higher taxes affects the climate. I just don't see the connection.
The way I see it, it affects the climate in exactly the same way that throwing virgins into volcanos prevents them from erupting.
As of yet, I know of no scientific experiment that has established that the hypothesized mechanism of carbon dioxide producing heat is a real mechanism. Not only that, but there are plenty of scientific valid, experimentally established, reasons to question the hypothesis.
Why is it that the global warming hysteria mongers always claim that nothing but doom and gloom can result from a warmer earth? Are they not aware of the struggles to survive and the massive species die-offs from the ice ages? Are they not aware that the dinosaurs thrived in a climate that was a few degrees warmer than the current climate?
She had four years of “college”....why do we think science could teach her anything when college didn’t?
You can’t teach a rock anything.
Good Hunting... from Varmint Al
Lomborg is a socialist. He wants a moderate carbon tax enforced globally. Imagine who will administer it, and how the funds will be distributed. The UN bureaucrats and European socialists and third world despots are all drooling over the possibilities.
???....why it was only two years ago she found out if you wrap aspirines in a piece of cheese it’ll go right down.
My problem with Global Warming(TM) or whatever they want to call it is that the data is inherently flawed and it sorta bugs me that it never seems to be questioned.
The fundamental question is where does the underlying data come from and how accurate are the numbers?
Near as I can figure, we have some pretty accurate global data since the advent of satellite measurements. Probably good data there. Going back 30 years, 50 at the most.
Then we have “weather stations” going back maybe 100. Some of this is probably good data, but as you go further and further back it has real problems. Problems with siting (urbanization), problems with calibration, then there’s the lack of data outside of populated areas and Western countries. We probably have no data for much of the world in this period.
Further back, you have individuals - sometimes professional, sometimes not, doing their own sampling/reporting. Temperatures vary sometimes by 50 degrees in a single day. What time where the temperatures measured? Did they sample consistently and throughout the day, every day? Were their instruments calibrated? Is siting data even known?
Go back 150 or 200 years and the data is most likely from people who may have manufactured their own thermometers without any reference to a standard or ongoing calibration and primarily were in Europe and the East Coast of the U.S.
100 or so years prior to that, there weren’t any thermometers so there is no real data.
By my estimation, you go back 50 years and the data has to be +/- at least a degree or two. Go back 150 years and it’s probably +/- 5 degrees. Beyond 250, you’re estimating based on annual observations (tree rings, ice cores) and extrapolating the temperatures based on the recent data, which is anywhere from +/- 1 degree to +/- 5 degrees uncertainty. Being generous, that estimated data starts off at +/- 5 degrees and that uncertainty only increases the further you go back.
You can’t “fix” these uncertainties in the data with mathematical manipulation. It is part of the data. If I recall my high school science correctly, most manipulation actually magnifies the resulting uncertainty.
I would view any historical temperature data plotted on a graph, not as a line going back in time, but as a cone of uncertainty that gets larger and larger as you go backward in time.
So, similarly, any future predictions have the same cone of uncertainty projecting forward since the future prediction is based on the past data.
I don’t know the exact dimensions for this uncertainty, but I’d wager I’m pretty close above, if not erring on the conservative side.
So when someone tells me they predict a single digit temperature increase x years in the future, without disclosing their uncertainty (which I darn well know isn’t zero), I’m immediately skeptical of either their honesty or their competency or both.
I strongly suspect that the smarter people in the climate scam know that their predictions are well within the margin of error/uncertainty, probably embarrassingly so, possibly by an order of magnitude.
Now, thanks to the declining birthrate of millennials who have been convinced that raising kids is too hard (and how could I forget, thanks, abortion!), there won't be enough people paying into Social Security. So no one can retire.
These people are idiots.