catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

A quick tour around Ozblogistan

with 81 comments

Andrew Norton dissects Kevin Rudd’s recent address to CIS members

At Club Troppo, Don Arthur has more on Rudd’s speech while Nick Gruen has produced Part 2 of his series on evolutionary psychology.

John Humphreys discusses which social democracy is better – the Anglo American one or the Scandinavian one?

Baybers at Austrolabe discusses Islamism.

Harry Clarke has a marvellously visceral post on those Melbourne rioters.

Graeme Bird has a very detailed post on the application of marginal analysis to evaluation of global warming which I find very hard to follow but which he has obviously put a lot of thought and work into. I have advised him to submit it to the Australian Skeptics for a sanity check but will he listen?

Written by Admin

November 19, 2006 at 9:10 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

81 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. It is just cobbled together from stuff I’ve talked about on Catallaxy.

    Its really a minor point. And that when Joe public goes to make an assesment of what the alarmist is saying he should ask “Is this guy taking into account this marginal factor. Or has he aggregated the whole world into some averaged-out soup”

    Really the Ian Plimer peice in the Australian Skeptics pdf that I’ve posted is about the best thing I’ve ever seen.

    They used to show this guy on TV all the time about 15 years back. A guy who had white hair as I remember. Even though he seemed not old enough for that. He was always coming out against fundamentalists. Like one time he was on TV debunking some bloke who was looking for Noahs arc.

    Also If I’ve got the fellow right he was the first person I’d seen who suggested that Conservation was an asinine concept and that the focusing on bio-diversity made more sense. But then my memory of this might be a little off.
    Just pointing out something else. Since the air cannot hold water vapour when the temperature gets too cold… and further since water vapour is our strongest greenhouse gas by a long-shot… we see that a serious cooling is going to be so much harder to get out of.

    If we had to choose between the two we would obviously choose a warming. Whereas we don’t face a problem with warming. Only with cooling.


    November 19, 2006 at 9:44 pm

  2. Jason, CRA International have turned up in Google text ads! This is getting funnier and funnier…


    November 19, 2006 at 10:54 pm

  3. So Jason, you are usually impressed by long posts full of made-up facts that you don’t understand?


    November 19, 2006 at 11:21 pm

  4. Lambert.

    Do YOU understand the point here?

    I doesn’t matter if its climate baby-talk. What matters is that people understand the issue and are able to figure out if any sundry alarmist thief-wannabe is taking this sort of thing into account.


    November 20, 2006 at 3:08 am

  5. No Tim I don’t know what’s made up and what isn’t and whether it makes sense which is why I am directing people to it so ‘science workers’ can put in their feedback and perhaps even suggest improvements. That’s what blogs are for.

    I am impressed by people who aren’t formally educated in an area putting in a lot of effort into thinking it through including by synthesising ideas from a wide range of areas which Birdy has apparently done. So colour me ‘easily impressed’ if that’s what you mean.

    Jason Soon

    November 20, 2006 at 7:34 am

  6. Bird, of course they are taking it into account. Global Climate Models are not zero dimensional. You could have found this out for yourself if you had bothered to look.

    Jason, are you impressed by Gavin Menzies as well?


    November 20, 2006 at 8:50 am

  7. Harry Clarke’s post about the rallies in Melbourne was quite interesting.

    Of course, marches are bloody fun, and a good way of avoiding lectures if you are doing an arts degree.

    However, one suspects that they have no real effectiveness as a tool for change.


    November 20, 2006 at 9:37 am

  8. Don’t you just love it?

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 20, 2006 at 9:56 am

  9. fatty-Lambert, why don’t you try and knock down my cozzie bro fatty-Bird’s arguments?

    because you can’t, can you? can you?


    Kiwi Bird II

    November 20, 2006 at 1:57 pm

  10. Kiwi: We would if we could work out what he was trying to say…


    November 20, 2006 at 2:15 pm

  11. Yeah, KBII – If you can give us a 200-word wrap of what YOU understand him to be saying, I’ll be happy to give it a look.

    I mean other than “professional scientists are morons, oh except the ones I agree with, and without reading their work I can categorically state that they don’t know the difference between aggregate effects and marginal ones, and what’s more SOMETHING IN CAPS WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE EMPHATIC”.


    November 20, 2006 at 2:42 pm

  12. Well this is why I have given the Bird’s post publicity, FDB. I am hoping for a mass intervention where enough people can pressure the guy into FINALLY submitting his ideas to some sort of peer review so we can once and for all put his ideas to the test. Come on, Helen, you wrote for the Skeptics magazine. Tell Bird to do it.

    Jason Soon

    November 20, 2006 at 2:46 pm

  13. I’m skeptical.


    November 20, 2006 at 2:52 pm

  14. “Bird, of course they are taking it into account. Global Climate Models are not zero dimensional. You could have found this out for yourself if you had bothered to look.”

    What are you talking about computer models for?

    A computer model that doesn’t back-test doesn’t work and is not evidence..

    No I’m talking about just the general assumptions that people seem to make.

    You claim that a doubling of CO2 equates to a 3 degrees increase in temperature.

    Well I checked out the pdf that you reckoned was evidence for this and I see slim to no evidence at all on that basis.

    I WISH that were the case but I think its likely to be a great deal smaller then that.

    For starters how do they work out the extra watts per metre squared to assign to doubling?

    Because he then goes on to work things out by reference to when the sun was seen to be reduced in terms of its “wattage” (as it were) hitting the earth.

    His examples are not of the type where CO2 was seen to precipitously increase.

    They are based rather on other examples of temperature-change not really relating to CO2 at all.

    And there seems to be the idea that ANY OLD WATTS WILL DO.

    Over the next two weeks (ie one little essay per week) I hope to show to the interested laity that its likely to be a great deal less then this 3 degrees.

    And that the evidence for this 3 degrees is really no evidence at all.

    But then again one ought not go to the other extreme. Its not likely to be nothing at all as opposed to less then 3 degrees.

    And its not likely to be insignificant considering the longer time periods.

    I would suspect that the longer the time period, the more important that this slight insipid husbanding of extra joules would become.

    But anyway to show this I’ll have to continue with the climate-science baby-talk.


    November 20, 2006 at 2:58 pm

  15. Peer review?!? If GMB submits his usual grab-bag to any kind of peer review, those who don’t call the cops will discard it as crankism.

    GMB, if there is anything valid in what you rave on about, you are going to have to find some way of packaging it nicely so that people don’t dismiss it out of hand. The posts you inflict upon us here are like the writing you find on padded cell walls, daubed in poo. Your mind works feverishly, clearly, but you will have to distill and refine your thoughts if you want to be the one to blow the lid off the global warming hoax.


    November 20, 2006 at 3:04 pm

  16. Well its the crankism that is needed here.

    That is to say they need to go back to the drawing board and put together simplified unrefined models and build up from there.

    But don’t be talking about me and poo-poo together you queer homosexual sodomite.


    November 20, 2006 at 3:42 pm

  17. “you queer homosexual sodomite.”

    LOL 🙂

    Try again, tautological poo-slinging mouth-frother.


    November 20, 2006 at 3:47 pm

  18. Graeme
    The Australian Skeptics journal is not a technical journal. Helen wrote for it. But you will have a sympathetic scientist in there who will peer review your ideas for you and help you improve them if there is anything there that’s valid.

    So PUT YOUR IDEAS TO THE TEST and submit. Get Helen to give you some contacts there if you want.

    Jason Soon

    November 20, 2006 at 3:54 pm

  19. No no no no no no no no no.

    I’m going to get so much wrong.

    Look this high priest-hood they hide everything. And they get shirty if you make enquiries. At least if they perceive you to be skeptical of the priesthood.

    So for example I cannot find out how they suss out their wattage per square metre for a doubling of CO2.

    But I think I can make inferences to suggest that its a bit bogus to do it by averaging everything out as it were.

    Like averaging out per square metre the suns wattage. And then the other greenhouse gasses and so forth.

    I mean did you see Ian Plimers stuff?

    Anything I do is just baby-talk anyhow. Bus foetus-talk in comparison to that dude.

    Peer review is overated. What I’d need is a sympathetic peer in his 5th year of a relevent physics study to collaborate with.

    But thats not important. The blogs the thing.

    And since the Priesthood is not going to be helpful up front they’ll catch me out on a number of things and thats OK too.


    November 20, 2006 at 4:11 pm

  20. Alright people.

    I want you to quickly bear witness to this thread.

    I want you to see that I was making legitimite enquiries as to the the realities of the natural world.

    Because if enough of you see it. Or if Tim suspects enough of you have seen it might dissuade Tim from closing me down.

    I went in under a sock-puppet since Tim pre-emptively banned me a long time ago. And already he put that sock-puppet on moderation.

    So I changed the name and I got through.

    Its like these people have something to hide.

    But right now its important. Because I’ve actually managed to get a bit of information out of these people.


    November 20, 2006 at 4:46 pm

  21. i’m glad none of these hare-brained schemes to halt global warming are actually being put into place…

    can you imagine…it would be like the great depression all over again but with global climate…

    we pump a whole bunch of shit into the atmosphere to stop a slight warming, which would probably plunge us into the next ice age…especially if warming is mostly related to solar activity, and nasa’s predictions about the solar cycles are correct…

    we should apply austrian economics to climate change worriers and show them how they could fuck up the earth big time…

    its time for everyone to get out their beachtowels and sunbathe through the warm period…enjoy it while it lasts…


    November 20, 2006 at 4:59 pm

  22. Right.

    But c8to.

    You keep pumping those bully-boys for information like you just did.

    Because its only a matter of time before Tim wipes me and starts changing the permanent record.


    November 20, 2006 at 5:38 pm

  23. Birdy ,to quote Arnie you are a real girly boy

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 20, 2006 at 5:45 pm

  24. You’re so right Cato. The howlers are worried if temps go up a 7 degs in the polar regions and 3 degs at the equator.

    They want to spend US$1,200 billion over the next 100 years to make sure a place like the artic doesn’t go from minus 75c to minus 68 c on a good day and Singapore doesn’t heat up from 32 degs to 35 degs.

    This is serious friggin brain death these mutton heads are suffering.

    don’t these people like warm weather?


    November 20, 2006 at 5:53 pm

  25. Cato Says:
    ” i’m glad none of these hare-brained schemes to halt global warming are actually being put into place…”

    Are you kidding? The Euros and the rest of the peasantry have signed up to Kyoto. What’s hilarious is that carbon credits contracts have collapsed in price becasue the entire gang is cheating.

    We sign up to that shit. Fm.

    What’s interesting is that the resident AGW clown was here the other day, riding on the Google Global Express no doubt, and no one asked him about Kyoto and how the pack is cheating on the credits. this how dumb or malicious our jounos are.

    We would get raped if we signed on to that crap.


    November 20, 2006 at 6:00 pm

  26. “Birdy ,to quote Arnie you are a real girly boy”

    1. Now that I’ve told you LOVELY leftists about leftist-projection you’d thing that you would try, at least in public, to fight against it.

    2. You’re a STUNNINGLY GOOD LOOKING FELLOW mate. You’re not a man at all.

    3. Arnie said “Girly-Men” so you get that right.

    4. Check your water-supply for oestrogen.

    5. Have yourself a long-weekend Charles Bronson film festival.

    6. Just try and get your act together more generally pal. Because you are A GENIUS AND WE NEED YOUR INSIGHT.



    November 20, 2006 at 6:14 pm

  27. I still do book reviews for The Skeptic. The editorial board has good scientists on it – including Ian Plimer. If you’re willing to put your ideas to the test, visit the website here. The editor is Barry Williams. It is worth looking at some back issues – and yes, the skeptics take shots at all sides of the climate change debate.


    November 20, 2006 at 6:24 pm

  28. Mr Bird, I see that you are have no respect for private property. You are not allowed to post on my blog. Not now, not ever. Under Australian law it is illegal for you to post comments without permission and the penalty is up to ten years in jail.

    Piss off, commie.


    November 20, 2006 at 6:26 pm

  29. Yeah.

    Well you don’t believe in private property you marxist jerk. So don’t use that JIVE against me.

    The real story is that I’m digging too hard into alarmist territory,

    And you are starting to panic like you are just about to be found out.


    November 20, 2006 at 6:31 pm

  30. Ummm, that’s not what I understood the law to be on that point, Tim, but then you are in a different jurisdiction 😉

    Graeme, if he doesn’t want you on his blog, don’t bother. It’s his blog, he can make the rules. Jason is pretty strongly anti-moderation, but others aren’t. It takes all kinds.


    November 20, 2006 at 6:33 pm

  31. Forget it.

    He’s a Marxist.

    He loses low-level property rights not protected by law as far as I’m concerned.

    Plus he’s an actively hateful DDT holocaust-denier.

    And plus he’s just pussying out because after all this global propaganda he cannot justify anything he says on the alarmist score.

    He’s the slander-merchant par excellence.

    All over the world people are being mislead by him.

    He spends his whole time intimidating authentic scientists into quiescence in the face of this alarmist onslaught.

    He’s a pig and he’s got the face to prove it.


    I take it back.

    In comparison to that BIG–GIRLS-BLOWSE fatty-Lambert you’re a tough-guy and bursting with Moxie and Righteousness.

    Compared to anyone else you’re a wet weed but thats neither here nor there.


    November 20, 2006 at 6:45 pm

  32. Lambert will, of course, tell his readers he has removed comments from that thread. Won’t he?

    Lambert is wrong, by the way, to accuse GMB of sock-puppetry. Posting under an alternate name is not in and of itself sock-puppetry. The sock-puppetry accusation is nothing but a bit of Lambert doing some self-trolling.

    Finally, in one of his Monckton posts, ostensibly on global warming, Lambert can’t resist attacking Monckton’s position on DDT. His attack is full of the same old misrepresentations.


    November 20, 2006 at 6:46 pm

  33. Birdy,
    Jason has advised what to do yet you won’t do it.

    Until you do it you are a dead set girly boy!

    Bring Back CL's Blog

    November 20, 2006 at 6:53 pm

  34. “The real story is that I’m digging too hard into alarmist territory. And you are starting to panic like you are just about to be found out.”

    That’s right, GMB. The IPCC and NRC and AMS and Royal Society and NASA and most of the scientific world are deathly afraid of your imminent paradigm-changing demolition of the climate change hypotheses. Be careful they don’t send a Commie-Greenie hit squad out to get you because you Know Too Much.

    “Plus he’s an actively hateful DDT holocaust-denier.”

    He might be actively hateful (I don’t know, haven’t met him) but he denies no DDT holocaust, because there isn’t one. Remember?


    November 20, 2006 at 7:10 pm

  35. Graeme, I sooned the swear words out of your last comment, and then the spamfilter ate it completely on me. If you wish to resend it, that’s fine, but without the abuse/swears, please.


    November 20, 2006 at 7:12 pm

  36. “That’s right, GMB. The IPCC and NRC and AMS and Royal Society and NASA and most of the scientific world are deathly afraid of your imminent paradigm-changing demolition of the climate change hypotheses”


    Just you keep Nasa out of it.

    Maybe they have a few spokespeople here and there that say questionable things.

    But they are the guys with the satelite information.

    They are the good guys and not to be callously thrown in with alarmist losers like the U(nited) N(azis) IPCC.


    November 20, 2006 at 7:20 pm

  37. Go away fatfingers.

    If you are going to laugh at all those Malaria-sufferers with your holocaust-denialism just go away.

    Beck has dropped in here. And he has a real affinity for their suffering.

    And look you callous ghoul?

    You just spat on him and the 400 million sufferers. And all the parents of the child-sufferers whose hearts are broken and bleeding every day.

    Go and have a good look at yourself in the mirror fatfingers.

    Is it a BLACK thing?


    November 20, 2006 at 7:25 pm

  38. “Birdy,
    Jason has advised what to do yet you won’t do it.
    Until you do it you are a dead set girly boy!”

    Thats Sacha-talk. I have some regard for Sacha but its the fob-off.

    The excuse not to think. Throwing hurdles for me to jump-over to excuse your bigotry and your unwillingness to think hard about an important subject.

    And you calling me a girly-man is just silly Quentin Crisp.


    November 20, 2006 at 7:28 pm

  39. Graeme
    for the last time the Skeptics journal is for intelligent laypersons. It’s not a science journal.
    You have a fair chance to submit it and have it published.

    Don’t be a girly man.

    Jason Soon

    November 20, 2006 at 7:41 pm

  40. JC — you refer to the AGW activists as wanting to spend $1.3 trillion.

    If we’re talking about stabilising co2, the cost will be much more than that. Using an annual cost estimate provided by John Quiggin I estimated a net present cost of US$51.1 trillion. JQ thought that was a small number. I disagree.

    My thoughts can be found here

    John Humphreys

    November 20, 2006 at 8:38 pm

  41. Sorry john.

    There were too many zeros.

    My estimate was US$2,300 trillion.

    Present World GDP is $45 trillion
    growth @ 4.5% over 100 = $3700 trillion.
    growth @ 3.5% over 100 = $1400 trillion

    Difference US$2,300 trillion.

    Ron Bailey at Reason did a similar example. I just used a trust 12c Hewlett Packard to get to the same result.

    It’s a shockingly big difference.


    November 20, 2006 at 8:58 pm

  42. Thats real GDP by the way. So you don’t need top PV it I would think.

    IF real GDP is $us 45 trillion. Real growth is 4.5%

    Then the difference is the real estimate at the end of 100 years.

    The quiggler thinks this is a small amount. That’s what happens when you spend your adult life couped up in a campus setting. One can even turn away 2,300 trillion and say its a small price to pay.


    November 20, 2006 at 9:02 pm

  43. Love to see some of these lefties running swap books at major financial institutions. They’d run through the captial of the bank on 48 hours.


    November 20, 2006 at 9:07 pm

  44. An admirable attempt JC, but that’s not the correct way to calculate the costs.

    You need to calculate the difference each year and then discount each future cash flow back to present value.

    John Humphreys

    November 20, 2006 at 9:14 pm

  45. it’s beautiful isn’t it? NOT

    Look at the payout ratio on this bet Stern and the quiggler want to to bet on.

    attach 30% probability that AGW is a real problem that must be dealt with….means 70% probability it is ok.

    30% of 2300= 690 trillion
    70% of 2300 = 1610 trillion

    You are better off doing nothing by roughly US$1,000 trillion over 100 years.

    This is why Bird keeps asking the howlers if the they believe in a disaster scenario. They would have to think the probability must be over 50% otherwise their howling doesn’t work. That’s why he keeps asking them to present their diusaster scenario. None can attach any probability to it.


    November 20, 2006 at 9:17 pm

  46. i don’t think you need to PV it if it is real GDP we are talking about. Haven’t you already discounted through the deflator in he GDP number.


    November 20, 2006 at 9:19 pm

  47. SL: Section 308H on the Crimes Act (NSW) says:

    1) A person:

    (a) who causes any unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data held in a computer, and

    (b) who knows that the access or modification is unauthorised, and

    (c) who intends to cause that access or modification,

    is guilty of an offence.

    Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

    Bird knows he’s no allowed to post and and did it on purpose, so a, b and c all apply.

    Earlier I suggested it was up to ten years, but that’s a different section that doesn’t seem to apply.

    The maximum that Bird the commie could get would be two years.


    November 21, 2006 at 9:08 am

  48. That won’t fly, Tim, much as people trampling on your (virtual) property is irritating. That section (and its various siblings) are clearly aimed at hacking of various sorts, viruses and denial of service attacks. Read through the various definitions (particularly ‘unauthorised’) and you’ll see what I mean.

    In any case, you would have to mount a private prosecution to get past first base – police prosecutors and the DPP are simply not going to care about a bit of internet sock-puppetry.

    Where the penalty may apply – and I stress the may – is if Graeme hacked your site and posted a great deal of material in such a way as to make it look like it was you posting it.

    But Graeme wouldn’t do that, I’m sure.


    November 21, 2006 at 9:24 am

  49. i think you would get laughed out of court tim…


    November 21, 2006 at 9:25 am

  50. No JC, real GDP numbers adjust for inflation but not the time value of money. I’m quite good at these sorts of calculations as it was my job before I upgraded to homeless and unemployed.

    We certainly need to put Kyoto and other government solutions through rigorous public policy analysis and on current estimates my assessment is that action fails such a test. This is an area where scientists are generally out of their depth. However, it is important to keep our analysis rigorous. Your approach, while certainly commendable in it’s intention, would not stand up to close economic scrutiny.

    John Humphreys

    November 21, 2006 at 9:52 am

  51. These cost-benefit analyses are interesting. And important. But are the possible costs of climate change being fully considered?

    Off the top of my head – any significant sea level rise will have large repercussions on populations close to the shore, meaning gigantic migrations. If pollinators suffer unduly, crops might not seed or fruit. What if fresh water stocks are adversely affected, in a world that doesn’t have enough anyway, due to changing rain patterns? If tropical diseases spread, will we have trade-disrupting epidemics?

    These and a thousand others are all bad- or worst-case hypotheticals, but must be considered in any attempt to quantify the costs.


    November 21, 2006 at 10:17 am

  52. Impairing the computer system is covered in 308E and it’s up to ten years imprisonment. I did read the definition of “unauthorized” and it clearly applies since Bird knows he’s been banned from commenting.


    November 21, 2006 at 10:23 am

  53. This is quite ridiculous, hacking into a secured computer is not the same as posting on a publicly accessible website on the WWW, GB does not have access to your PC so end of story.


    November 21, 2006 at 4:15 pm

  54. if antarctica continues to cool sea level wont rise significantly. (the latest paper(s) claim antarctica is cooling)(

    melting floating ice in the artic doesn’t change sea level as floating ice displaces exactly the same volume as if the ice was melted.


    November 21, 2006 at 4:43 pm

  55. Tim, this won’t fly, much as you may wish to scare Mr Bird.

    The legislation doesn’t apply (if you don’t believe me, ask a lawyer near you), and even if it did, courts look askance on private prosecutions.

    I don’t presume to have your scientific knowledge (why you seldom, if ever, see me post on climate change topics). I grant you that law is a closed shop with features that encourage rent-seeking, but it does require a fair amount of skill. If you’re going to flick legal threats around the interwebs, I suggest you obtain some legal advice.


    November 21, 2006 at 5:56 pm

  56. comment 46 – hahahahaha JC doesn’t know how or why to discount to present value. the “deflator in the GDP number”? WTF?

    how about the INflator in the number of PV $$ you are setting aside today as deduction from the lost GDP in 100 years time?

    if you don’t discount to PV then you are comparing apples and oranges. i thought you worked in finance – how do you not know that? i think i learned that in high school

    tell me your address, JC, so I can send you this for christmas:

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 21, 2006 at 11:09 pm

  57. Battery pack

    If you’re looking at real GDP 100 years ahead why do you need to PV?


    November 21, 2006 at 11:21 pm

  58. because you are looking at GDP changes 100 years ahead but expressing the effect of those changes in terms of costs incurred today

    it doesn’t cost $100 today to make a $100 investment in 100 years. you invest $1 today in a savings account and you will have (thanks to compound interest) way more than $100 in 100 years.

    so if something is going to cost $100 of GDP in 100 years you do not account for it as a $100 cost today.

    instead you discount the $100 future cost to present value. it’s very simple and very obvious.

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 21, 2006 at 11:33 pm

  59. Battery pack
    Today’s world GDP is about 45 trillion.
    Assuming a growth rate of 4.5%, what is world GDP in 100 years time?


    November 21, 2006 at 11:36 pm

  60. That’s real world GDP.


    November 21, 2006 at 11:39 pm

  61. mate, it is so simple.

    you came up with a cost in 100 years of $2,300 trillion or whatever. let’s assume that is in fact the cost in 100 years.

    THAT IS NOT THE COST IN TODAY’S DOLLARS. you can set aside a much much smaller figure in today’s dollars to cover the cost that will arise in 100 years.

    otherwise, why not project the GDP difference in 1,000 years, or a million years? i bet you could come up with some really impressive numbers if you did that and ignored the most basic, basic rule that says you discount the costs to present value.

    seriously, if you cannot understand basic financial principles such as this i am not going to waste more time explaining.

    Humphreys is much more patient than I am. he can explain it to you.

    NiMH AA 1.2V 1400mAh

    November 21, 2006 at 11:42 pm

  62. “Impairing the computer system is covered in 308E and it’s up to ten years imprisonment. I did read the definition of “unauthorized” and it clearly applies since Bird knows he’s been banned from commenting.”

    Impairing the computer system you say?

    I’m too much of a technophobe to so much as ATTEMPT such a thing.

    What’s your evidence for this holocaust-denier?


    November 22, 2006 at 1:52 am

  63. Look Lambert.

    Why don’t you just answer the questions?

    You don’t want to be precious about this when its your site that slanders people all over the world.

    You couldn’t even get away with running that site of yours from the US. This constant abuse of authentic scientists and the constant pushing of this anti-science alarmist agenda.

    You can only get away with it because this DDT-holocaust-denying and anti-science alarmist JIVE is being generated out of our own fair city.

    Just answer the questions.

    I recorded them for the public record knowing that you’d wipe them when they went against your leftist slander/propaganda campaign.

    Just answer the questions.

    If you do you might be forced to learn something rather then just hole yourself up in this bubble-world of hate and destruction.


    November 22, 2006 at 1:59 am

  64. Imagine if you went through with this Lambert.

    I’d get to grandstand on this twice. In the initial case and then on appeal.

    So I could use it as a forum to just trash the influence of Deltoid all around the world.

    A lot of people don’t realise just what a big part it is you play in this misinformation campaign.

    I’ll be on any sort of forum all round the world and they’ll be linking your marxist-inspired anti-science.


    November 22, 2006 at 2:02 am



    “Heres something from 29 years ago about doubling of CO2; “1979 U.S. National Academy of Sciences report finds it highly credible that doubling CO2 will bring 1.5-4.5°C global warming.

    =>Models (GCMs” Now, you do understand that since that time the scientists have been busy reducing the error margin?”

    Thats not evidence so much as an assertion. You can’t refine something thats flawed from the start. Just like you can’t polish a turd.

    But can you guys tell me this?

    What is the standardised way to come up with a watts per metre squared figure for a doubling of CO2 in the first place? What is the way thats usually done?

    You have that assumption in place and then you seek out the LAMBDA right?

    Or at least thats what I’ve seen so far.

    Since when I’ve tried to look at it the wattage per metre squared side of things has simply been assumed.


    Terrific explanation Mr King.

    But tell me something.

    Aren’t more, shall we say, INSIDER-calculations likewise made difficult, by the variability of the earth?

    Getting a good figure for epsilon in the Stefan-Boltmann way of thinking might be so fraught as to place the whole idea of it in the too-hard-basket.

    So it would SEEM… by your very CONVINCING explanation.

    But what about the more mundane calculations?

    What about your starting wattage-per-metre-squared assumption when it comes to your first stage of estimating the effect of a doubling of CO2?

    Is not THIS calculation ever-so-buggered by the self-same variability of the planet earth that you so cogently showed us invalidated a simplistic application of Stefan-Boltmann law?

    Actually I’m pleasantly surprised. You guys are being quite helpful.

    Posted by: akachaos | November 20, 2006 01:40 AM

    Now not only did you not answer the questions… which after all were really just one question.

    But you wiped the questions so your bully-boy coeterie couldn’t answer them.

    But the thing is this is important. Its important for the future and survival of our country.

    You affect to know about these things.

    Instead of throwing these poopy-pants tantrums and laying these ultra-statist threats on your fellow human beings….

    Why not answer the question?


    November 22, 2006 at 2:17 am

  66. Well Tim is entitled to do what he wants, it’s his blog. But it is not a good look when all you are doing is asking some quite serious technical questions (which frankly I can’t make head or tail of because I haven’t been following the whole discussion) and he wipes them. It looks as if he has something to hide.

    Jason Soon

    November 22, 2006 at 2:22 am

  67. I want to speak to you as a human being fatty.

    Somewhere a long time ago you faced a choice. Wherein you had to ask yourself… or you SHOULD have asked yourself….



    Being an educator is a CALLING. And CALLINGS are GREEDY MASTERS.

    And you cannot serve two of them.

    So if you didn’t make a clean either-or choice in the long-ago……..

    ….. maybe you best make that choice now.

    Because if you choose propagandist I’ll be on your case and thats just the way it is.

    But if you choose educator, given your world-wide audience, you are in a more fortunate position, then me or anyone else here…. to DO GOOD.

    I’ll be happy to see you succeed.

    For the most part I don’t believe in these extremist….. absolutist…. choices that define things into the before and the after.

    But every so often such choices come along.

    And there you are.


    November 22, 2006 at 2:28 am

  68. “I want to speak to you as a human being fatty.”

    OK, go ahead. Unfortunately you dissolve quite quickly into gibberish, but I do manage to start understanding you at

    “And there you are.”

    But that doesn’t leave me with much.


    November 22, 2006 at 2:51 am

  69. fatfingers, I think Birdy was talking to ‘fatty Lambert’

    Jason Soon

    November 22, 2006 at 2:51 am

  70. Dammit, I’m the original fatster! I demand my rights to be the fat one!

    GMB, sorry to misinterpret you. Again. Perhaps you could be clearer next time? Although I should have realised it wasn’t me you were talking to (no commie-homo-liar epithets).


    November 22, 2006 at 3:06 am

  71. c8to

    That Plimer piece I put on my blog is the best thing for this sea level subject. Actually its one of the best things I’ve seen in a long time



    Some people are just SO smart and SO sensible and SO knowledgeable that you would be take that minimum wage job following them around to just write down what they say.

    I’d seen this guy Ian Plimer on the TV maybe a dozen times, maybe 15 years ago.

    In the old days some aspects of the ABC were sometimes just so superb that it would have been hard for me to want to trash the whole thing on libertarian grounds.

    When I think about it, its just those self-same qualities that George Reisman has and that Friedman had in the last century.

    And it reminds me of this swimming coach in Melbourne when we went to the seminars and also the Russian fellow…

    ….Genadi Touretsky….

    I mean we are talking people who are just SO smart that when they are TALKING I’m LISTENING……

    And I probably aint even blinking.

    Now I’m purposely saying this BEFORE I go and check out what the internet now has to offer insofar as this fellow is concerned.

    This to me is a scientific experiment of sorts.

    I completely stick my neck out based on these ancient memories of this fascinating gentleman….

    And then if it doesn’t pan out the way I’d imagined it then this juxtaposition between how I figured things and how they actually turn out…

    Well thats a LEAD of sorts.

    A LEAD perhaps to greater enlightenment.

    After that ridiculous rave I suppose what I’m saying is that Ian Plimer, as I remember him, is a cut above. And it might take me longer to provide my promised critiques on the alarmist global warming side of things.

    Because I would want to see what this fellow had to say about this subject and any other first.


    November 22, 2006 at 3:26 am

  72. Jason, Bird’s questions were already answered earlier in the thread. He’s not interested in the answers — he’s just grandstanding.

    And I’ve refrained from commenting on the way you run your blog because it’s your business, but since you’ve seen fit to comment on mine, I thought I’d return the favour. The quality of the comments at Catallaxy has declined markedly since Bird showed up. His abusive, incomprehensible (according to one J Soon) rants aren’t just worthless — they act to drive away thoughtful commenters. Comment threads full of Bird droppings aren’t a good look for your blog.


    November 22, 2006 at 3:30 am

  73. No they weren’t.

    And I’ve copied the whole thread.

    But supposing you are right?

    Supposing they were aready answered?

    Why don’t you just answer them now?

    Because in this make-believe-world where they were already answered it would be a simple matter of you cutting and pasting.

    And then we’d know for sure.


    It appears you are yet to make a clear choice.


    November 22, 2006 at 3:41 am

  74. Come on Fatty.

    Cut and paste.

    You’ve robbed me of the answer I was seeking.

    How is it the initial wattage estimate is made in the first place for a hypothetical doubling of CO2?

    I mean I can see what Annan does after that.

    But the initial wattage per square metre difference?

    Where does that come from?


    November 22, 2006 at 3:44 am

  75. Cozzie bro, what’s with this ‘fatty’ business?

    You’re not exactly Brad Pitt. You know what I’m saying?

    Too much turkey at reunions and all that …

    Kiwi Bird II

    November 22, 2006 at 4:08 am

  76. No need to be RUDE man.

    That aint how you was BRUGHT UP man.

    Lets just say I’m a few workouts away from my best fighting weight.

    Show a bit of TACT fella.

    I tell you that Bird-family rustic-bluntness aint necessarily appreciated too far from the farm.

    You might not believe me.

    But this is the information I bring back from this…..

    … this cold






    Thats the only take-home-story I got for you.

    And it don’t get any better then that.


    November 22, 2006 at 5:06 am


    Check this out. I’m just doing my new research project….

    That is looking for everything that Ian Plimer has said.

    And then I come across this!!!!


    Meanwhile, the Australian has printed a rather silly article by Ian Plimer:


    Does it matter if sea level rises a few metres or global temperatures rise a few degrees?


    Sea level changes by up to 400m, atmospheric temperatures by about 20C, carbon dioxide can vary from 20 per cent to 0.03 per cent, and our dynamic planet just keeps evolving.

    Greenpeace, contrary to scientific data, implies a static planet. Even if the sea level rises by metres, it is probably cheaper to address this change than reconstruct the world’s economies.


    Plimer omits to mention that those huge changes took place over hundreds of millions of years and that while the planet kept evolving, that evolving involved mass extinctions of things like the dinosaurs.

    Living through a mass extinction is unlikely to be pleasant.

    Plimer also pretends that the other side in the debate is just Greenpeace rather than pretty well all the climate scientists.

    I SEZ:

    Don’t even try Fatty. You have no clue what you are talking about.


    For about 80 per cent of the time since its formation, Earth has been a warm, wet, greenhouse planet with no icecaps.

    When Earth had icecaps, the climate was far more variable, disease depopulated human settlements and extinction rates of other complex organisms were higher.

    Thriving of life and economic strength occurs during warm times.

    Could Greenpeace please explain why there was a pre-Industrial Revolution global warming from AD900 to 1300?

    Why was the sea level higher 6000 years ago than it is at present?

    Which part of the 120m sea-level rise over the past 15,000 years is human-induced?

    To attribute a multicomponent, variable natural process such as climate change to human-induced carbon emissions is pseudo-science.


    Well there you are. If Bully-Boy Lambert and his marxist hangers-on try hard enough they can crowd out the voice of reason.

    Even if that means side-lining someone like Plimer.

    Someone who Lambert doesn’t deserve to even wash his feet.


    November 22, 2006 at 5:20 am

  78. test

    Jason Soon

    November 22, 2006 at 3:27 pm

  79. “mate, it is so simple.”
    Yes it is quite simple, but you seem unable to grasp even a basic point.
    “you came up with a cost in 100 years of $2,300 trillion or whatever. let’s assume that is in fact the cost in 100 years.”
    I took 100 years because that’s the standard basis for the AGW howlers.

    Where did I say it was the COST in today’s dollars, Angry Anderson? All I did was try to quantify the meaning of 1% growth rate in growth differentials for real GDP.

    “you can set aside a much smaller figure in today’s dollars to cover the cost that will arise in 100 years.”
    As above. You seem to be missing the complexity of a basic issue J

    “otherwise, why not project the GDP difference in 1,000 years, or a million years?”
    See above. AGW howlers are using 100-year projection

    “i bet you could come up with some really impressive numbers if you did that and ignored the most basic, basic rule that says you discount the costs to present value.”
    You could, if you were projecting costs. However you one is projecting future real GDP at two different growth rates you don’t need to PV. It’s real GDP, used to demonstrate how even a 1% change in the growth rate has a huge impact across generations.

    “seriously, if you cannot understand basic financial principles such as this i am not going to waste more time explaining.”
    Angry Anderson, answer the question. What is the real GDP in 100 years time if you have a baseline of 45 trill and a projected growth rate of 4.5%?

    “Humphreys is much more patient than I am. he can explain it to you.”
    He doesn’t need to. Unlike you he finally understood what I was saying.

    Here is his comment:
    “You are right that you shouldn’t discount something if you’re trying to show how wealthy future generations will be. Fair enough, I guess that’s interesting.”

    It seems you need a recharge, battery pack.


    November 22, 2006 at 3:52 pm

  80. Fatty-Lambert. You leftist-holocaust-denying obsessive.

    This diversionary tactic will avail you little.

    Answer the question of where you get the 3 degrees from.

    Its important that people here this scientific fraud from you.


    November 23, 2006 at 3:25 am

  81. Bird, I’ve already answered it multiple times. No more answers for you since you don’t believe in other peoples’ property rights.

    Jason, why do you hate the Australian Skeptics? What did they ever do to you that you want to inflict Bird on them?


    November 23, 2006 at 3:50 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: