HomeGlobal warmingDecades of wrongness on climate

Comments

Decades of wrongness on climate — 5 Comments

  1. Interesting to see all those warnings about an impending ice age. I wonder how the astoundingly astute (in his own estimation) climate warrior and history adjuster William Connolley would react to them

  2. Why does anyone still listen to these bozos? I mean, many of them are the same bozos. Paul Ehrlich was confidently predicting imminent apocalypse from the late ’60s until the day he died… 35 years later. And changed the cause almost with his socks. If he’d had a sandwich board instead of a… [taptaptap] Medical doctorate? Really? That’s all? To listen to his acolytes, you’d think he had at least three Nobel Prizes in different fields. Anyway, nobody would have given him the time of day.

  3. Despite such a consistent record of dismally failed predictions, the news from the meeting of our Betters in Davos is that everyone who matters (government, academia, industry, banking) expects that serious action to forestall putative “Climate Change” is coming. Nothing like a good Carbon Tax to freeze those old ladies in their garrets and keep those drunken English hen parties at the local pub instead of on Spanish beaches.

  4. It occurs to me how powerfully children’s stories and fables encapsulate truths that adults often forget.
    Examples would include:
    The Pied Piper of Hamelin – the importance of honouring contracts
    The Scorpion and the Frog – it’s not wise to bet against people’s nature

    And

    Chicken Licken – best parable about Climate Alarmism ever!

  5. More seriously, though, your link reminded me of the famous Simon v Ehrlich bet.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/01/13/but-why-did-julian-simon-win-the-paul-ehrlich-bet/#46920d261b03

    The core of the environmentalist mistake is their assumption that supply only grows arithmetically (in a straight line) while demand grows geometrically (an upward curving and ever increasing line). It’s a seductively elegant model but entirely wrong.

    A much better model is sinoid v step (demand in a s curve, supply increasing in steps). This a function of the wealth effect on demographics and limits on ability to consume versus technological ability to increase or substitute supply.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.