"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Giving the Devil his Due

Willis Eschenbach really ticked me off on my foray into Climate Audit.

So it's with mixed feelings but with absolutely no irony or sarcasm intended that I point you to his excellent FAQ on the CO2 record at Watts Up. If you run into a naysayer who says nay to the CO2 record itself, this sound, clear and informed exposition will have the extra cachet with them of being at the Watts site.

11 comments:

Steve Bloom said...

Cachet with some, perhaps, but the comment thread provides strong evidence that the various "CO2 data is corrupt and/or unreliable" will live on.

Mal Adapted said...

Well Michael, you impelled me to make my first ever visit to WTFUWT. I was reasonably impressed with Eschbach's post, but the comments fulfilled my worst expectations. The distrust of the experts, on the one hand, and the confidence in the commenter's own expertise, on the other. The ironing, it burns 8^(!

Michael Tobis said...

Yeah this one tickled me:

"Now can you ever imagine a post like this at RealClimate on say a paper By Steve McIntyre.

"Just makes you think."

I only wish. On the "makes you think" part, I mean.

Belette said...

Note how pissed off Watts is when someone points out that all the data is available via the WMO :-)

I think it is also very funny that Watt's "skeptics" are prepared (just about) to accept the obvious when explained by one of their own but not otherwise.

From the comments there, I see that the "yes but is it man-made" sect still flourishes. I think Willis should follow up with a post proving the rise is anthro, just to wind them up.

frank -- Decoding SwiftHack said...

Cached with WebCite just in case.

And I can see the next bullcrap headline from Marc Morano now: "Global warmist Michael Tobis now says that climate skeptic is correct".

-- frank

Belette said...

Ha, I'm rubbish, Willis has indeed written a follow-up: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/some-people-claim-that-theres-a-human-to-blame/

While I'm here I may as well spam you with my wurbling: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/06/dumb_america.php

Mal Adapted said...

Well heck, I mis-spelled Willis's last name. It's Eschenbach, of course. Least I can do, to get it right.

ourchangingclimate said...

The climate skeptic Ferdinand Engelbeen explains the evidence of human influence on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere:

http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#The_mass_balance

In argueing with other "skeptics" I've pointed them to this link before, as it's more likely to be trusted, than say, NOAA or IPCC or other of those commie organisations.

Steve L said...

With MT giving credit to an opponent and MA admitting and correcting his own mistake about an opponent, it seems to me that you're playing a different game from the other guys.

pough said...

@Steve L

MT also admits to only being in it for the gold. ;-)

Mal Adapted said...

"it seems to me that you're playing a different game from the other guys."

Nah, it's just important to catch our own mistakes before they do ;^).