Hatchet Job

Politics makes strange bedfellows.  Maybe the recent article by Jeffrey Sachs will bring some otherwise disagreeing fellow bloggers into an all-inclusive love in.  Sachs is a bête noire of the radical left – are you listening, Troutsky? – because he’s confirmed neo-liberal, beloved of administering economic shock therapy to poorer nations.  He thinks global warming is an alarming crisis, so they should beg to differ (if they’re going to toe their political lines correctly.)  Ahh…but global warming is the crisis of the day for the liberals and the lefties – blame it all on those coal-burning corporations! 

All those right wing libertarian, Tea Party types hate the likes of Sachs (and Paul Krugman, another liberal economist on the AGW bandwagon) and think global warming is a hoax!  Conspiracy theories abound, almost as profusely as secret Tri-lateralist skullduggery and corporate oligarchical string-pulling does on the Left.    Can we all agree that this article by Sachs is a piece of trash, or that he is a piece of trash…either will do to gain entry to my bed today!

Like Krugman, whom I admire, while I’m a bit leary of Sachs, Jeff weighs in with the tired old saw that the people who “deny” the conclusions of “climate science” are the same ones who thought smoking cigarettes had no bad effects on your health, or wanted you to believe that, not to mention the fact that Big Oil is behind it.  Like Krugman, he makes no argument at all about the science – that’s settled, of course.  Nevermind that most major corporations of all kinds seem to have caught the AGW train – it’s good marketing to be green!  Sure, at first, the industry had a stupid knee-jerk propaganda fit to try and discredit the AGW hypothesis before it could gain traction.  Dumb, dumb, dumb, but they’re only money men – whaddaya expect?  To review the arguments of intellectuals who critique the IPCC and not notice that a whole lot has changed requires willful blindess or dishonesty.    Not to mention the fact that Sachs doesn’t seem to have any interest in the science at all.  Just pick your team, and root for them, is all it is…


6 Responses to Hatchet Job

  1. Ducky's here says:

    Can we agree it’s junk? Nope.

    The bulk of the critics of this so called climate change scandal are about as credible as the two douchebags who were sent be Breitbart to do an expose on A.C.O.R.N. Never mind that a cursory forensic analysis of their so called tape would quickly disclose the overdubs and editing that went into that work of art.

    But, the nation quickly folded and cut of funding and now we all feel better. Nasty poor folk were forgetting their place.

    So now some dipstick steals some e-mails and off we go. We’ve got every rabies radio jackie from Boston to L.A. yapping about the climate science fraud.

    Right wing America is little but a mass of conspiracy theories and Sachs is pretty much on the money.

    • lichanos says:

      Right wing America is little but a mass of conspiracy theories…

      This is very true.

      …Sachs is pretty much on the money.

      This is false. The two statements are not logically related in any way. Unless you see science as an ideological conflict, the two halves of your proposition need not have the same truth-value. (Of course, as I mentioned, Sachs is a neo-liberal, so if you are a real radical, you are in a quandry!)

  2. Ducky's here says:

    … next thing you know we’ll have masses of people crying out that the guy with the journalism degree who started off as one of the first “happy talk” local news weathermen and started the weather channel is qualified to debunk the work on some of the most complicated mathematical modeling problems we have.

    Oh wait …

    • lichanos says:

      You mean Anthony Watts? You should read his blog. It’s very informative, and very non-ideological. (His commenters are something else, however, but that’s show biz…Same goes for the learned commenters at RealClimate.)

      The real criticisms don’t have much to do with “debunking.” They are all about close, detailed analysis of the data and weighing of hypotheses. No headline grabbing revelations, at least not usually.

      …work on some of the most complicated mathematical modeling problems we have.

      This is rather sad. Would you have said the same about Robert MacNamara’s mathematical models that clearly showed we were winning the war in Vietnam? They too were “some of the most complicated mathematical modeling problems” of the day. Educated people should not be intimidated into accepting the output and “expert” interpretation of technical work. There are fundamental ideas at play that anyone with intellgence can consider. My turn from a cautious AGW person to a confirmed doubter was driven by examining not what the critics said, but by how the AGW folks answered their critics. It was pretty clear that they just changed the topic.

  3. Ducky's here says:

    The veracity of the models isn’t the issue here.

    A conspiracy theory has been allowed to make the judgment. The press can sensationalize virtually anything. I see this as a matter of the hijacked e-mails that were then used completely out of context to “prove” the modeling is bogus.

    It may well be, there certainly is criticism on all sides. Eric Alterman in The Nation regularly goes medieval on the climate change theory but the main thrust is popular conspiracy theory which drowns rational discussion.

    • lichanos says:

      You’re just not reading the critics with anything substantial to say. Conspiracy is not in the cards, except in the sense that there is a group of scientists are intensely committed to this AGW idea and sometimes get pretty sloppy, willfully so, in promoting it. No hoaxing either. Just leave the ranters aside.

      As for the press, it’s pretty much on the AGW bandwaggon, so what are you talking about? Papers like the NYTimes bent over backwards to minimize the importance of the content of the hacked emails. And if you think they were quoted out of context, I suggest you read them on your own and follow up on the scientific controversies they address. Sure, the quote about “using a trick” was flogged ad infinitum, but that was trivial stuff.

      Eric Alterman in The Nation regularly goes medieval
      I gave up on The Nation ages ago. BORING! But be careful when you use the phrase “goes medieval” regarding climate change. What does that mean? Did you know that one of the big sticking points is the interpretation of medieval climate data?

      Finally, I’m not sure what you mean by “the veracity of the models is not at issue here.” As a basic principle, one can safely say that ALL models are WRONG. That’s just a starting point, always. The point is, how wrong are they? So, the veracity of models is ALWAYS an issue. Do the models contain gross blunders and misconceptions about the global climate system? I don’t think anyone claims that. Have they done a good job of forecasting over the last ten years. No, but the AGW folks will say it doesn’t matter, except when it proves their point. Do they models warrant the confidence that is granted them? No. What do the models actually tell us – this is much in dispute.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: