Thoughts on economics and liberty

Science trumps mythological models. Watch Monckton easily win the debate against panic-mongering AGW believers

Finally got around to watching this debate on climate change organised on 19 July 2011 by the Australian National Press Club in Canberra (see the video linked below). It is long (50+ minutes) but eminently worth watching.

In the debate, this sharp and intelligent man, Christopher Monckton, demolishes the lazy claims of Richard Dennis who is director of the Australia Institute. While AGW "believers" (for that is now a religion with IPCC as its Prophet) are ONLY able to cite the trumped-up "consensus" (that there is no such "consensus" is obvious even from the most cursory examination of the literature, and there are over 30,000 scientists who OFFICIALLY disagree with IPCC findings), Monckton, on the other hand, cites DATA and SERIOUS ARGUMENT. Dennis simply has NO CLUE about ANY underlying scientific issues.

On top of that Monckton discusses the economic cost-benefit analysis. Dennis, a New Keynesian economist was caught off-guard on such a basic issue and was totally unable to refer to ANY cogent cost-benefit analysis on the subject. Indeed, the only serious public attempt so far in this regard was by Nicholas Stern which was firmly rebutted in serious economic journals years ago – and Monckton cites that in his debate.

As a scientist, Monckton is FAR SUPERIOR to Dennis. As an economist, as well, Monckton has raised more fundamental issues that Dennis has. Which says a lot about the state of economic science in Australia.

In the end Monckton concludes that CO2 is BENEFICIAL FOR LIFE ON EARTH. That is precisely the conclusion I've arrived at here, based on the relatively limited time and energy I've devoted to exploring the SCIENCE behind this issue. The data are now overwhelming, in my view (e.g. see this) to show that IPCC models are not better than any work of fiction. They definitely do not qualify as science. 

Monckton won the debate hands down.

In a poll conducted across Australia after the debate, there was a 20 per cent INCREASE in those who thought that climate concerns are exaggerated – from 43% to 52% of those polled. There was, similarly, a 15 per cent fall in those who thought that "if we don't act now it will be too late", from 44% before the debate to 38%. The 38% are likely to be those who do not know how to use their faculty for reason, and to explore issues for themselves, preferring to let Gods decide (e.g. IPCC) their views.

If nothing else, Monckton has opened the eyes of thousands of Australians (and presumably of thousands of people across the world). He should have added that all IPCC models are now entirely falsified, and IPCC needs to go back to the drawing board. That would have ended the debate on a clear scientific footing – i.e. go find data to match your theories, then come back. Do your homework, AGW "believers". Prove that the climate actually behaves the way your models do.

Climate science is today in the same shape that "population science" was in the 1970s before Gary Becker and Richard Easterlin. Only after the work of Becker and Easterlin (and Nugent – the chair of my dissertation committee) did population studies get back on track. [Note: both Easterlin and Nugent were on my dissertation committee, so I speak with some depth of knowledge about complex systems].

It is amusing to see AGW fanatics compare the position of "sceptics" (as if ANYONE can be a scientist without being a sceptic) with those who deny the value of immunisation. 

In general, those who DENY the need for panic are:

a) MORE QUALIFIED than those who "believe" (and more intelligent)

b) HAVE A FIRM BASIS IN SCIENCE – and can distinguish good science from bad science.

c) HAVE A DEEP AND ABIDING INTEREST IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND IN HUMAN WELFARE.

I "believe" in evolution, the value of immunisation, and so on. And I believe that we must use the best knowledge available today to protect animals (e.g. the tiger). But I don't, any longer, based on personal study of the subject, "believe" that there is any need to panic re: CO2. 

Instead, many of the "believers" in AGW are anti-science. They are also socialists and environmental "fanatics" – who have NO understanding of how we can best enhance the environment. And most of them are enemies of humanity, constantly demanding a smaller human population.

Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

View more posts from this author
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial