Degrees saved or created

One thing global warming hysteria has generated is a lot of rent seeking. It is a kin to war time spending in that way and everyone knows that governments just love war.

In fact, one way to look at the growth of the state in the 20th century is an effort to find just as good substitutes for war, because it was discovered in the 20th century that war can endanger the existence of the state.

Way OT:

BTW, remember all that hoopla about Chrysler's electric cars?

Well, so much for that: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon...

Very funny and I "agree". But.....it still could be the case it would have been the coldest on record were it not for global warming. The problem with the global warming crowd is they have no observable predictive model. If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound? No, but it makes sound waves. Where is the AGW sound wave model? They don't have one; they instead have a constantly updated data-fit correlation machine. Were it not for politics, it would be a waste of time talking about it.

OH, yes, they do have a predictive model: increased carbon dioxide is correlated with global warming. Therefore carbon dioxide causes global warming. Therefore, if we reduce the amount of carbon dioxide, we'll reverse global warming. That was the whole point of the Kyoto Treaty: we reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the tune of trillions of dollars, and we'll reverse global warming.

(note: this comment contains certain widely-believed fallacies.)

I don't understand peoples' problem with "created or saved". Maybe it might sound weird to the general public - but economists talk in terms of counterfactuals all the time. By all means, question the numbers that are put out - but what economist would scoff at thinking in terms of a counterfactual?

(1) Because counterfactuals are the realm of bullshit. Every day I understand more and more what is wrong with the economics profession.

(2) Anyway, Obama is not an economist, he's not trained as an economist, etc. so his use of the terms come at best second hand.

(3) They can be used to justify nearly any jobs figure ("Look, we may have 50% unemployment, but at least we saved 50% of the jobs.).

Like it or not, we live in a dynamic world. Multiple things change simultaneously. If you don't think in terms of counterfactuals and accept the uncertainty of any given claim to a counterfactual, you're really not able to think rationally. This goes way beyond economics and Obama.

I think it's irrational to accept any counterfactuals as truth or representing truth. They are simply hypotheses. I could say that the stimulus has destroyed or prevented five million jobs. Why don't you accept that? You certainly can't disprove it.

Absolutely. I'd never claim to disprove it. I'd give arguments for being suspicious of the claim. That's all we can ever do.

Ahh, historians have traditionally ignored them precisely because of the high bullshit to verity ratio.

Multiple things change simultaneously.

Yes, and this is part of the reason why counterfactuals are so much farting into the wind.

Rational people do not put much stock in counterfactuals. Indeed, I would argue that taking counterfactuals seriously make one susceptible to all sorts of bullshit claims.

Re: "Yes, and this is part of the reason why counterfactuals are so much farting into the wind."

What are you talking about? This is precisely why counterfactual thinking is so important. It's only in a world that isn't dynamic and complex that thinking in terms of counterfactuals can be jettisoned. You may need to explan this sentiment in a little more detail.

Counterfactuals have very little explanatory power; what they have is the power to justify nearly any agenda. They are largely prone to the justification of a priori judgments, etc.

I'm tempted to say "I think you have your answer"... but that sort of response would reflect my youth and general lack of authority.

I have no idea whether (weather?) global warming is true or not, but none of you would pass a statistics 101 course. Please look up the difference between a data point and a trend. Stocks (and temperatures)can drop for a given day, a week, or more while the trend line is up. Short term or local variations are not the same as a long-term global trend.

If you want to occupy the intellectual high ground on this issue, please don't engage in freshman-level rhetoric.

Correlation is causation.

Then let us discuss the long term trend. How far would you like to take it? Can we take it back to the Precambrian when the Earth was semi molten rock? What's that do for the long run trend and the long-term cooling that has been cycling downward from four and one half billion years in the past?

I basically maintain my position that the notion that you can make useful one hundred year predictions (much less the thousand year predictions that some climate scientists have made) is outside of the realm of what humans can do. It is essentially based on conceit and arrogance.

"I basically maintain my position ...."


But of course you do. As it is the comfortable position for you to maintain. And this is mostly about your comfort levels. So stick to it.

Do get off your high horse.

And if you are going to address my comments, then you know, address them.

I completely agree with you.

I'm think people are merely trying to say a cold snap no more disproves Global Warming (or proves Global Cooling) than a heat wave proves Global Warming (or disproves Global Cooling).

Gil, you are correct in that a short term data variation in time or location neither proves nor disproves a trend. Both sides of this debate abuse statistics and are guilty of using short term variations to "prove" their point. I'm not arguing for or against AGW, but I am arguing for the correct use of statistics when debating the issue.

Perhaps Russ' post was intended as sarcasm againt the abuse of statistics by the pro-AGW crowd; if so, it went over my head.

I wonder what would happen if you took those climate models, that keep on predicting ever increasing warming and compared then to actual data. Would the data trendline be below the 95% confidence? Hmmmm....more importantly would they reject the hypothesis if it did, or would they try to "revise" the data like Hansen?

What would you do if they did and it didn't conform to your preconceived notions?

Good question. Ask Muir that question too.

In fact that already happened, that's why Hansen had a little fun fudging the numbers. Once that came out, I really do find it hard to believe the AGW claims. They have already shown that they won't let a little thing like data get in the way of their claims. The trust, if there was any, is broken and I for one will not trust their numbers anymore. As I scientist in a Gov run lab, I see how easily a little "number fudging" is done, so that's why I'm so skeptical of anything done by the gov and gov funded research.

You can stop wondering.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uplo...

http://www.icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPE...

Imagine that! My papers says the models don't fit with reality. I wonder what data set your graph is using? Could you be using Hansen, fudged data? Something seems fishy.

The data set I am using is global, uses surfaces records and covers over 100 years.

The one you choose to believe is only for the troposophere above the tropics and covers 30 years of data only.

Looking for the right data set to support your predrawn conclusion is called data mining... it's really unprofessional and admission that the general data doesn't support your claims.

Oh so the science isn't settled then? Interesting!

No the science IS settled. Nature knows exactly how she will respond to our increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. All our debating WILL NOT change her position one bit.

A number of climate scientists have already stated that we are going to go through cooling periods (we are in one right now) which they really cannot predict.

Climate science is so chock full of qualifications, unknowns, etc. that one ought to be highly skeptical of any claimed definitive conclusion.

There's no cooling trend. There is just a problem with your sources;

http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/G...

Realclimate is an AGW site...why should I listen to your sources?

Because the people who blog there actually are climate scientist and publish in peer reviewed journals.

Oh yeah... "peer reveiwed" apparently another libertarian bad word...never mind then. You are right YOU shouldn't trust them because you won't like what they have to say. And I'm sure that's reason enough for you.

You obviously lost my point. You claim that you do not respect source that don't buy into AGW, so I reject yours on the same merit.

Much of what you said above can be said of you as well. I figured a "Dr" would be smart enough to realize that.

Since that particular blog does provide the length and breadth of opinion by climate scientists on the issue, it is not the final authority on anything.

Looks like cooling to me.

Sounds like a severe case of torticollis you have there! You should get that checked.

Sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but names will never hurt me.

Isn't that why statistics were created? To be abused? Lies, damned lies and....well....

Yes, you would think that would be obvious.

Russ, I like your sense of humor. Indeed there are people that like this type of argument to support their views. Just yesterday Menzie Chinn (http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/11/whe...) concluded a post with this statement:
"But one wonders how much lower per capita consumption would have been in the absence of the actions undertaken by fiscal and monetary authorities around the world."
I'm sure he'll be wondering about that for the rest of his life.

That data is national data for October. The global analysis is pending.

But for September the global data is in.....

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&ye...

Selected Global Highlights for September 2009

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for September 2009 was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th Century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F). This was the second warmest September on record, behind 2005, and the 33rd consecutive September with a global temperature above the 20th Century average. The last below-average September occurred in 1976.

For the year to date, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7°C (58.5°F) was the sixth-warmest January-through-September period on record. This value is 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th Century average.

OMG Run to the hills!

Thanks, Muirgeo. I have updated the post accordingly.

From the report:

Please Note: The data presented in this report are preliminary. Ranks and anomalies may change as more complete data are received and processed.

Will there be a revised report once all the data comes in? Looking at previous months as far back as January 2008 show the same disclaimer (how far back should I go to see a revision)? And this web site directs one to another page where temps are indexed to both 1901-2000 and 1971-2000? Is this cherry-picked data in the interim? Why not update the entire report as all the data comes in?

And then the source: look, if you do not have the integrity to admit that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is a bureuacratic instrument of government that seeks to find anything that fits its template that society needs planning to save people from degragting their own Earthy environment then you are delusional. There's no wonder, then, that this organization is right up your Malthusian alley.

Beating up on your religion get's so tiring. But it wouldn't have to happen if you stopped proselytizing that Chicken Little stuff here.

LCJ,

Your not beating up anything of mine. It's closer to say that you ARE punching a brick wall.

I'm surprised you, of all people, wouldn't see that my actions on this brick wall are having some kind of huge effect on the wall's stability. Should we call it ABWS (anthropomorphic brick wall shaking)?

Oh, silly Russ, you're just a global warming denier. Everybody knows that climate and weather are to different things. The climate can be getting warmer and warmer while the weather gets colder and colder. In fact that's what's been happening for the last ten years. This process could go on forever and global warming would never be disproven, because facts won't convince a man away from something he wasn't convinced of by logic.

I love pet theories that can never be disproven. And they call it science! HA

EVERYTHING is evidence for global warming.

When looking at the data trends...YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!!

Basically every climatological trend I can think of is consistent with global warming.
-Surface trends; 3 independent compilations that each show the same thing
- Satellite trends
- Sonde baloon trends
- Alpine glacial trends
- Percipitation trends
- Hydrological trends
- Arctic ice trends
- Arctic river flow trends
- Pan evaporation trends
- Ocean temperature trends
- Large lake temperature trends ( Tahoe, Tanganika, Bakail)
- Drought trends
- heating day and cooling day trends
- record heat trends
- record cold trends
- snow line trends
- Lake freeze/ thaw trends
- permafrost trends
- Earthshine trends
- Spectrophotometric trends
- surface skin layer trends
- spring budding trends
- migratory trends
- atmospheriic moisture trends
- cloud trends
- increased snow accumulation over the Antarctic and Upper elevations of Greenland do to increased moisture and precipitation.
- precipitation trends
- sea level rise trends
- atmospheric shirkage trends
- stratospheric temperature trends
- sea surface barometric pressure trends

Climate and weather are to different things, as what... ? You cut off your analogy.

Two different things. Sorry, typo.

;-)