Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Jolly Hockey Sticks

Eli is enjoying aggravating the Weasel who is having a hard time of it trying to deny that there is an ethical dimension to economics. The lad has dug his claws in and is unlikely to let go, but never mind. It's the old perfect intergenerational problem that economics cannot equitably deal with, a situation where current generations impose costs on future ones, if the future is far enough away. One of the "outs" is that future will be richer and better able to take care of itself, or perhaps a miracle will occur (see Institute, Breakthough). Eli tho has always been one to put it crudely.

Those who make the argument that people will be richer in the future and able to deal better with climate change so let's not bother, obviously feel justified in stealing from the future rich.

Yes, yes, Eli knows about taxes:) but that is the admission fee to civilization another argument, another day perhaps, but no denying these intergenerational problems are moral swamps.

This, of course, assumes that people WILL be richer in the future. Go talk to a Roman in 500 AD. Truth is that per capita resources over many millenia, till about 15-1600 or so or so when they took off. Now one can argue that the bad old days are not likely to return, but one cannot claim that progress is never retrograde.

So your guarantee that the world will grow richer is??? Frankly little better than the Breakthrough Boys' "here occurs a miracle" (or not). Point is that there is no guarantee, that for more of history than not the world has NOT grown richer, that much of the richer in the past four centuries has been from exploiting finite resources, both inorganic and biological and what yah gonna do when the music stops??

Ad exasperation and all that


tonylearns said...


The difference in that graph is the advent of science and systemetized technology, as well as an economic system that has been able to utilize human creativity and productive capacity. Whether it will continue unabated is certainly up for discussion.
You make a good point about taxing the future. The question is where, how and when is the tax utilized most effectively to mitigate the problem of climate change without causing so much disruption now that it limits development of future technologies/economic changes that will be much more effective.
My personal view is that we need to start preparing the structures for massive changes in a number of different directions in energy use conservation, mitigation, and even geo engineering. But without knowing fully what the effects will be and how long it will take them to manifest there should be caution, since choices we make now might not be the preferred course of action 5,10, or 25 years from now,
Ah, but talking about what to do gets us away from arguing about whether ACC is real or not. My bad

John Mashey said...

I've asked a few economists why Ayres and Warr are wrong, see last page of Ayres' talk. So far, I've generally gotten "interesting question" sorts of replies.

Of course, we already did the discount rates hole a while ago, so no need to repeat.

amoeba said...

Nice post. However, the embedded links:'as estimates show'. 'Till about 15-1600', don't work, and the WayBack machine can't help.

Horatio Algeranon said...

"Truth is that per capita resources over many millenia, till about 15-1600 or so or so when they took off."

Eli is clearly ignoring and/or denying the Medieval Warm (GDP) Period.

And when the music stops?

There will be a mad (cut-throat) rush for the rocket to someplace else.

EliRabett said...


Anonymous said...

Astronomical uncertainties in climate change impacts, economic reality, societal change and adaption, resource extraction, global politic, and how these factors balance against each other make any economic argument that includes a number on future 'riches' completely invalid.

Imagine yourself as a fully actualized person 100 years from now. Ask yourself the same ethical questions we are asking now.

Jeffrey Davis said...

The Age of Petroleum made the benefits of technology and Capitalism seem inevitable and irresistible, but until the black gold started pouring, the gifts of Capitalism and technology seemed like, well, a Manchester slum.

J Bowers said...

Re. Grypo. And if Schmittner (2011) turns out to be accurate in any way, we're looking forward to the kind of climate change which added 120m sea level and melted 2km worth of ice sheet from on top of New York and Manchester, should another ~2.2C be added to global mean temperature.... it would seem.

Anonymous said...

Schmittner does not say the world will heat up. He says if the concentration of CO2 doubles then temp will rise a couple of degrees. It would be awfully hard to double CO2 what with all the "sinks" around. And how about those new emails? Have you guys seen them or are ya just praying they'll go away?

Hardy Cross

Hank Roberts said...

"Suppose you meet someone who tells you about a great new product. It performs exactly as advertised and offers fantastic new features. Would that endorsement factor into your decision to buy the product? Probably.

Now suppose you learn that the person works for the company that sells the product – or has been paid by the company to tout the product. Would you want to know that when you’re evaluating the endorser’s glowing recommendation? You bet. That common-sense premise is at the heart of the revised Endorsement Guides issued by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the nation’s consumer protection agency.

The revised Guides – issued after public comment and consumer research – reflect three basic truth-in-advertising principles:

Endorsements must be truthful and not misleading;
If the advertiser doesn’t have proof that the endorser’s experience represents what consumers will achieve by using the product, the ad must clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected results in the depicted circumstances; and
If there’s a connection between the endorser and the marketer of the product that would affect how people evaluate the endorsement, it should be disclosed....."


David B. Benson said...

People in the future is spend a very much higher proportion of income on food.

J Bowers said...

Schmittner says, "Very small changes in temperature cause huge changes in certain regions, so even if we get a smaller temperature rise than we expected, the knock-on effects would still be severe.". You'd probably not guess using Michaels' altered graph (Pat forgot to mention that in Forbes).

Sloppysecondsgate aside, seen the latest hockey stick?

Hank Roberts said...

Richer? Pfah.

Those crap charts track conversion of what our forebears though was endless self-reproducing natural wealth into what our bullshitters think is endlessly self-reproducing money.

And I say, the natural world would get you through times of no money better than money will get you through without that natural world.

Compound interest works in an ecology. In an economy it's a lie, a claim that the person who "has money" has a right to claim, without effort, an endlessly increasing slice of what the world used to produce for us without effort on our part -- and mostly, the asserted right to claim at a rate of increase greater than the world ever did manage to increase.

That's an extraction chart, not a wealth chart.

Of course you can get grossly fat, for a while, eating the seed corn.

90 percent of the big fish are gone -- since the 1950s. No one alive today will ever see a live and bountiful ocean, and most won't ever get a clue about what they could have seen a century or two ago.
Shifting baselines fool us so easily.

Far more than 90 percent of full grown trees are gone. Few people have ever seen one.

"I never before knew the full value of trees. My house is entirely embossomed in high plane-trees, with good grass below; and under them I breakfast, dine, write, read, and receive my company. What would I not give that the trees planted nearest round the house at Monticello were full grown."
--Jefferson to Martha Randolph (from Philadelphia), 1793

J Bowers said...

"And I say, the natural world would get you through times of no money better than money will get you through without that natural world."

Hank, you're right, but tell that to the Cornucopian (neoliberal) school of economics. They'll just say the environment's gone on holiday and will be back shortly once Brains has a eureka moment for International Rescue, and we'll muddle through in the meantime with better iPods.

Hank Roberts said...

> cornucopian
See also: "detritovore"; "cargo cult"; "parasite"; "grown child expects food and housing free forever"; "rational expectations economist" ...

Hank Roberts said...


Superimpose _this_ over that nitwit economists' chart of wealth:

Global loss of species from LMEs. (A) Trajectories of collapsed fish and invertebrate taxa over the past 50 years (diamonds, collapses by year; triangles, cumulative collapses). Data are shown for all (black), species-poor (<500 species, blue), and species-rich (>500 species, red) LMEs. Regression lines are best-fit power models corrected for temporal autocorrelation.

Hank Roberts said...

And this: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/uoca-diw022208.php
"dust fall" in the West over the past century was five to seven times heavier than at any time in the previous 5,000 years, said Neff, who is also a faculty member in CU-Boulder's Environmental Studies Program. While some fine-grained dust from Asia periodically falls on Colorado's San Juans, the abundance of larger-sized dust particles in the lake sediments there indicates most of the dust originated regionally in the Southwest, said the authors.
... the increased dustiness in the West coincides with intensive land use, primarily grazing, according to radiocarbon dating and lead isotope analysis of soil cores retrieved from lakebeds, he said."


Hank Roberts said...

and this from early 2011:

quoting this:
"...Based on the currently inflated commodity prices, commodity producers in countries such as Brazil and Russia have clear business cases for investing in projects to dig more commodities out of the ground...."

Which is a clear restatement of the delusion behind that first chart at the top of Eli's page here.

But all this of course gets tagged "Cassandra file" and ignored.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a bit OT for this thread, but still very hockey-stick related...

Watts just served up another mind-blowing helping of incompetence over at WTFWT (linky here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/01/hockey-stick-falsification-so-easy-a-caveman-kid-can-do-it/):

Priceless Climategate email 682: Tom Wigley tells Michael Mann that his son did a tree ring science fair project (using trees behind NCAR) that invalidated the centerpiece of Mann’s work:

‘A few years back, my son Eirik did a tree ring science fair project using trees behind NCAR. He found that widths correlated with both temp and precip. However, temp and precip also correlate. There is much other evidence that it is precip that is the driver, and that the temp/width correlation arises via the temp/precip correlation’

For the bunnies who aren't familiar the territory behind NCAR, you are looking at mixed ponderosa and scrubland at an elevation of about 6,000 feet. On-the-ball bunnies certainly understand why tree-ring cores taken from ponderosas at the lowest elevations of the Front Range conifer forest belt don't make very good temperature proxies.

--caerbannog the anonybunny (who enjoyed hiking with his relatives in Boulder Mountain Park last year).

J Bowers said...

Caerbannog, I've asked him what the significance is. Perhaps someone there will also take up my offer of a $1000 wager that "someone within the email treasure trove ratpack" [does not want] "to beat that little kid up."

DeWitt said...

Hank Roberts,

"And I say, the natural world would get you through times of no money better than money will get you through without that natural world."

That wouldn't be a paraphrase of the Fabulous Furry Freak Brother's motto would it?

"Dope will get you through times with no money better than money will get you through times with no dope"

Or did Gilbert Shelton in the mid 1960's paraphrase someone else?

Hank Roberts said...

DeWitt, you got that right; source is cited here:

Anonymous said...

"Posterity's Promises"
-- by Horatio Algeranon

Why should I
Give to Posterity?
What has she
Ever done for me?

Posterity is always
Says "Tomorrow"
She'll be waiting

To give me riches
And her charms
Keep me from
The Future's harms

But I'm quite sure
She won't deliver
Never does
So don't believe her

H/T Sir Boyled Roche, Groucho Marx, Winston Churchill or whoever

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.


what is this?

"For the bunnies who aren't familiar the territory behind NCAR, you are looking at mixed ponderosa and scrubland at an elevation of about 6,000 feet. On-the-ball bunnies certainly understand why tree-ring cores taken from ponderosas at the lowest elevations of the Front Range conifer forest belt don't make very good temperature proxies."

For the bunnies who are continually being misled, what Caerbannog said above is meaningless and useless. He is making a poor attempt at nuancing a simple issue. Go look at the 1990 IPCC report and look at H.H. Lamb's graph. Michael Mann's graph replaced his and the difference is obvious, he flattened the medieval warm period to make present temperatures look more dramatic. Those with brain knew this was retarted on several levels. Perhaps Eli can help out the good doctor though.

Eli, the good doctor would like to know why Mann made this graph, was he banking on most of the public not knowing we're below GAT and below the average atmospheric co2 content? I am betting yes because every time I bring this issue up I am accused of cherry picking for asking for a comparison to the historical record. Who would have thought that using the entire record would be considered cherry picking?

Steve Bloom said...

So Lamb looks at very spotty North Atlantic data and comes up with a cartoon (not an actual graph of data, note), and Jay Cadbury says that it's the authoritative source for all time? But perhaps Jay's day job is as a fundamentalist Biblical scholar? If so everything makes sense, or at least is consistent. But William of Ockham would probably say it's more likely that Jay is a deranged troll.

Do try to stay on the meds, Jay. It's all that's protecting the rest of us from you.

Steve Bloom said...

IMO William needs to answer the question of whether he should care about doing things today for his benefit that contribute to bringing about an extinction of the human race in a thousand years or so. That boils it all down, but somehow I don't think he'll care for the lack of complexity.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.


hey can you get me in over at Gambino's closed mind? The guy seems like a huge coward, won't let me post anything. Is this guy an associate of the rabbit? I really need to point out some of the hocus pocus he's engaged in right now.

J Bowers said...

"Go look at the 1990 IPCC report and look at H.H. Lamb's graph. Michael Mann's graph replaced his and the difference is obvious..."

...Lamb's graph was for Central England only, Mann's was for the entire world.

But you've been made aware of this before. That makes your argument a curious one.

"Those with brain knew this was retarted on several levels."

You have a bright future in ironic comedy.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury Post-hole Digger (demoted from Pizza Home Delivery because he isn't smart enough to deliver pizzas) was informed previously that the Lamb graph in the first IPCC report was a crude representation of temperatures from a small part of England, whereas Mann's graph showed a global (or at least NH-wide) temperature reconstruction.

Even after this was explained to him multiple times, in language that a middle-school student would understand, he still comes back and regurgitates that same idiotic talking point.

So is James Cadbury Post-hole Digger really that stupid? Or is he a pathological liar? Or a combination of both?

--caerbannog the anonybunny (who is getting less and less polite dealing with liars and idiots as time goes on...)

tonylearns said...

Dr. Cadbury,

Since we have never communicated before i will try to respond to one of your points in a less perfunctory way than some of the others.
You are absolutely correct that the majority of earths history has had much higher CO2 than the present.n You would think those climate scientists would have purged the internet of the hundreds of graphs that show that.
What time frame are you referring to?
There is little controversy around the fact that Current CO2 levels are higher than then have been in probably hundreds of thousands of years, and there is no indication that they will stop increasing for at least another 50 years, which likely means CO2 levels will be higher than they have been in 30-50 million years. Granted that is not long ago from the perspective of the entire earths history, but it is significantly different biosphere now than then, and it was significantly hotter than now as well.
regarding Mr. mann. I assume you know his reconstructions don't go back 500,000 years much less millions. Apparently someone misplaced the ice cores (unless the evil ones have hidden then somewhere), so I don't think it is called "cherry picking" bringing up an issue that is totally irrelevant to the topic you seem to be discussing. Of course Gymnosperms are hundreds of millions of years old, so clearly Briffa and the "team" do not want anyone to know the proxy reconstructions from back then (or to be charitable maybe they are just too lazy to do the millions of calibrations necessary)
As for Mr. Tamino. I am guessing that he gets bored of dealing with questions that an honest person would know the answer to.

Anonymous said...

@tony learns

wow. That was a tremendously honest answer. I do disagree with your assertion though that a lot of this data is readily available. For example, I cant find the running historical average of atmospheric co2, I can't find the running historical average of sea level and I can't find a running average temperature of the Arctic. Furthermore, I have found very few paleoclimate reconstructions and I have been told that the ice age experienced at 4400ppm atmospheric co2 in the Ordovician period was wrong. I would kindly ask you to provide me with this information that you claim is so readily available. I've got many more questions, thank you for the response.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.


yes, I am aware of the differences that the one graph is regional and the other is global. How many people in the public know this? My point is that Lamb's graph was replaced with basically no explanation.

Anonymous said...

I am aware of the differences that the one graph is regional and the other is global. How many people in the public know this? My point is that Lamb's graph was replaced with basically no explanation.

Well, I guess you can't move goal-posts without digging more post-holes. So Jay Cadbury Post-hole Digger it is!

--caerbannog the anonybunny

toto said...

I see you guys have pointed out to Jay that there is a difference difference between a hand-drawn graph and an actual reconstruction, or between Central England and the world.

Of course we all know Jay's a bit of a case. But surely no respectable person would ever be fooled by such arguments. Right?

Well, guess what's been going on over at Judith's?...

J Bowers said...

@ toto. I see Romans get a mention there.

Tacitus -- The Agricola, Book 1 [10], on Britain:
“With the exception of the olive and vine, and plants which usually grow in warmer climates, the soil will yield, and even abundantly, all ordinary produce.”


Anonymous said...

Of course we all know Jay's a bit of a case.

Surely nut!

Cymraeg llygoden

Anonymous said...

One of the "outs" is that future will be richer and better able to take care of itself, or perhaps a miracle will occur (see Institute, Breakthough). Eli tho has always been one to put it crudely.

Those who make the argument that people will be richer in the future and able to deal better with climate change so let's not bother, obviously feel justified in stealing from the future rich.

Wait, you mean there's more people out there with this view than the one person I keep running into on my favorite tech site? That there are several people (more than 1!) who actually think that regulations imposed today mean we won't be able to make technological advances for adaptation/mitigation as quickly in the future?


J Bowers said...

Depends on whether you view regulations as another way of saying 'standards', an alternative term for 'oppression', or somewhere inbetween. Have motorcycle helmets saved lives and created a vibrant and successful industry with the benefits of a number of technological advances, or have they eroded rights, taken away the feeling of the wind in the hair and the right to be brain dead?

Do regulations stifle growth and innovation, or do some companies already floundering in their own mismanagement and incompetence use them as an excuse to shareholders when it gets a bit obvious? Did those businesses, which have had the advantage of reduced taxes already, have a track record of not actually re-investing in such things as plant anyway, instead pocketing the cash to buy bigger houses and fast cars and increasing shareholder dividends?

guthrie said...

Tot - that post at Currie's is incredible. I can see at least 5 or 6 major errors at first glance, and frankly anyone who claims to be any sort of climatologist and yet allows that sort of rubbish to be posted on their blog is a disgrace to the scientific community.

susan said...

Just for the record, here's a graphic of MWP temp anomalies compared to recent events. Seems pretty straightforward and obvious

"This global map is from Mann (2009) and is compared to a 1961-1990 baseline."
is compared to this:

Quite obvious, innit?

I puzzle at times as to whether any of the small army of fake skeptics rebunking thousands of times to prevent real discussion actually believes their nonsense, and recently recalled one of the ten commandments:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness"

It is sad but true that only ethics now lies between us and unimaginable chaos, and our moral compass has been kidnapped by success and wealth instead of truth and compassion, the latter of which is now labeled communistic.

(Susan Anderson)

Anonymous said...


There is a very famous engraving by French artist Gustave Doré: "Mosher showing the Ten Commandments"

And deniers focus on the commandment that says "Thou shalt not commit adultery" which they think means "You shouldn't behave like an adult".

--Horatio Algeranon

J Bowers said...

"I puzzle at times as to whether any of the small army of fake skeptics rebunking thousands of times to prevent real discussion actually believes their nonsense..."

They do. Get your hands on a copy of this book.

David B. Benson said...

Can't eat a book.

A carrot now...

Antiquated Tory said...

"It's the old perfect intergenerational problem that economics cannot equitably deal with, a situation where current generations impose costs on future ones, if the future is far enough away."

I wonder too if this is one reason that Ayn Rand never gave children to any of her main characters.

Hank Roberts said...

> one reason that Ayn Rand never gave
> children to any of her main characters.

She did, but they ate them.

Hank Roberts said...

Aside, this one's good:

Horatio Algeranon said...

Remind Horatio again why CO2 will only pose a significant problem if economic growth continues (as some seem to assume).

Horatio could be wrong (has been before on a couple occasions) but it sure seems like the atmospheric CO2 level would continue to go up (by about 2ppm per year) even if world economic activity were somehow "frozen" (maintained) at it's current level (ie, same total emissions each year)

At that rate of increase (~2ppm per year), atmospheric CO2 doubling (over the preindustrial level of ~280) would be reached by the end of this century.

So, even with "zero economic growth" (zero growth in yearly emissions), future generations will still end up with a 2-4C increase in temperature (depending on climate sensitivity).

Why is the latter scenario not a problem?

And RE "one reason that Ayn Rand never gave children to any of her main characters"

Maybe cuz then should would have had to title her book "Atlas Hugged", which doesn't have quite the same bite.

Anonymous said...

How to tell a society that is collapsing; decreasing returns on prettty much everything. Oh dear that is us. Have we even reached peak science, Look at the cost of Prof Rabett's lab compared to one of twenty years ago, or Edison's or Newton's. Eli has advanced science, but today's costs are so much greater for smaller advances. How much more again would the lab that Eli lusts over cost.

Our massive increase in wealth over the last two hundred years has been energy driven, or should I say cheap energy driven. That cheap energy has almost gone, what is left is so much harder to get to. We are not drilling for oil at 40,000 feet because of an abundance at 100 feet. New coal mines are removing much more overburden.

The last ten years has overturned a two hundred year trend of reducing commodity prices (in real terms). That we have entered the end game of this society is already in the numbers. We are like that coyote, running on air.

So no, the world will not be richer in the future.

Little Mouse

David B. Benson said...

Little Mouse appears correct.

Gaz said...

It's amazing that people who would rail against the idea of taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor today, on the basis that intperpersonal comparisons of utility are invalid and therefore the only way of knowing a transaction increases what economists refer to as "welfare" is if the transaction is a voluntary one, will quite happily argue that the environment can be degraded for future generations (who can't be parties to the transaction, even involuntarily, because they aren't born yet) on the assumption that they will be so wealthy that they won't notice as much, which is not just an interpersonal comparison of utility, but an intertemporal one as well.

There, I broke the record for the longest sentence on the Rabett blog!

I think I deserve some lettuce and a carrot for that!

EliRabett said...

Well, actually Eli recycles. EBay can be a bunny's best friend (esp if the Rabett knows what the stuff is and the seller don't).

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.


"will quite happily argue that the environment can be degraded for future generations (who can't be parties to the transaction, even involuntarily, because they aren't born yet)"

Well HO HO HO! Right, and you know what else this applies to! SOCIAL SECURITY and UNION benefits and pensions baby! And wasn't around when those deals were reached, so I shouldn't have to honor any of that squat! Gaz! You have been caught! The standard of doubles, my friend!


you are paid by media matters or another far left hack group.

@Susan Anderson

I refuse to look at your graph because John Cook is a crazy activist and has banned from his site. Additionally, we're still below global average temperature and below average atmospheric co2, so you still have no comparison for human attribution of climate change. Of course, you can call me a liar and a denier...but the fact remains. Plus, I think your moral compass is broken or warped, either way I think it is extremely selfish of you to demand my money and I think you should pay more money to use fossil fuels oh that's right your a huge hypocrite and aren't willing to do any of the crap that you preach.

This should put me in the running for best run on sentence, and the good doctor requests a carrot from Eli as well.

tonylearns said...

I must admit I had been feeling bad about not responding to Dr. Cadbury after his very polite comment on my comment, so I am glad his current insights have inspired me.
Frankly, I was embarrassed at how wrong I was and how right he was. How DARE these scientists not have running averages of temperature or CO2 concentrations or sea level rise to the level of accuracy that Dr. Cadbury insists on. All of the dozens of graphs I found on the internet apparently are imperfect.

He IS a PH.D, and I can see is rightfully offended to the sloppy reconstructions. Of course the most likely explanation is that they purposefully have botched it all up, hiding inclines, declines and levelclines, so that climate scientists can get away with their crazy assertions about CO2 and the greenhouse effect (did you carrot munchers know that the human contribution of CO2 is ONLY .0000something of the ENTIRE atmosphere?)

Ok. I am reading for more questions Dr. Cadbury

Anonymous said...


precisely, Tony. You can't find it either. Instead of complaining like me, you chalk it up to busy work and defend the scientists by claiming the information is not important. Oh well, none of you should wonder anymore why global warming is questioned, we ask questions and are told the questions are bad or not worth responding to.

@Susan Anderson

Susan, curiosity got the best of me and I had to check out John cookin the books' Cook's graph. Are you kidding me? 2 pictures of the globe colored in with crayons? hahahaha, those pictures lay out the case pretty straightforwardly if you're smashed.


Horatio, apparently nobody gave you the memo. None of this is about reducing emissions or stopping temperature rise. This is a war between enviro-gyro whackos and the rest of the public. The enviro-gyros hate fossil fuel period and want to impose their moral beliefs on everybody else.

Consider the wars Bush started versus liberal policies today. For example, in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Bush did not raise taxes and joining the war effort was FULLY optional. Military personnel already enlisted who opposed the war were not very smart people because if you sign up for the military and don't expect to enter combat your just an idiot. Now, some of the hackers like J Bowers are going to respond that Bush increased spending by reducing the taxes on those making 250k+. Unfortunately for J Bowers, I have a brain and telling me that allowing people to keep more of their money that was theirs in the first place is a spending increase sounds very stupid. The next thing Bowers will say is that Bush lowered the taxes relative to the rate they were at under Clinton. Doesn't matter, might point still stands because that money never originated in the government either way. It's not Bush's fault the stupid congress chose not to cut government expenditures in other places.

On the other hand, we ALL will have to pay for stupid Obamacare and we ALL will have to pay for a stupid carbon tax. For example, Kathleen Sebelius said women's contraceptives and wellness visits are now free. Eli, I have no control over some random lady's sexual endeavors, why in the hell should I have to pay for it? And let's not get into the other areas where this applies like social security because my opinion on it is the same, I shouldn't have to pay it and the idea of social security in the first place is wrong because you can't pay somebody not to work. I know of someone's grandfather who actually returned his social security checks.

tonylearns said...

Dr Cadbury ( I am thinking of renaming myself Cadbury's bulldog, since you have so effectively turned me around). I am rather horrified at the impoliteness of the commenters not Referring to DOCTOR Cadbury. I only have a high school degree so my first name is fine.

Once again the DOCTOR eviscerates the entire post. HAH. What OF social security or pensions? What hypocrites you all are. Can't you see the howling millions of protesters demanding their money back for these programs? Isn't that REALLY what OWS is about? Why we would ALL be rich if we had just dumped our parents into the river when they couldn't work anymore. "what have you done for me lately". Argue THAT one you red rabbits you.

And I see Bowers has not dared to correct DOCTOR Cadbury's research exposing him for a Soros funded pasrasite.

And Susan is left quivering in frustration unable to counter the devastating argument that John Cook is a crazy activist! Proof in itself being banning the penetrating analysis of the DOCTOR!

And NONE of you will dare deny that current temps and CO2 levels show a DEVASTATING downward trend when you don't CHERRY pick arbitrary points like the last 50, or 200 years or even the last millennia.
I have just found that original temperature of the planet is over a THOUSAND of degrees K (that means Kelvin. Kelvin is some guy who counted the temperature ALL the way down to nothing and then stopped there). So no matter HOW you slice or dice it temps are heading south and this temporary blip is meaningless.

And Susan how DARE you demand money of a DOCTOR! Shame!

Following the DOCTORS advice, when I just bought gas I told the guy to give an extra five to Mobil, so they can give it to my descendant, but I think he just put it in his pocket

To be fair to the rest of you (and apologies to the DOCTOR) his was not the best run on sentence, so I don't think he should get an award for that.

So, DOCTOR Cadbury, do you think if I keep writing really good comments like this I can be banned at Skeptical Science as well, or do I have to actually write something on that site to get banned? I got banned at Goddard's site (twice in fact), but that was for using facts. Would you put in a good word for me with John?

Cadbury's Bulldog (decided not to wait and see if you all think this is a good moniker).
P.S. If I had known how much easier it is to be a denier, I would have switched sides AGES ago!
P.P.S. Really, it's fun, you guys should give it a whirl

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.


You know its funny you mention that OWS is angry about social security, if that's the case why aren't they protesting the democrat party? There the ones who won't allow the retirement age and the benefits to be changed. And as mayor Bloomberg said, most of their protesting is unfounded, 0-1% of those people actually had money in the banks they are protesting, and the mortgage crisis was largely a result of government forcing bad loans and then guaranteeing the loans.

tonylearns said...

I am a little offended. i was AGREEING with you and you took it all the wrong way. those scientists have plenty of time and i clearly said that they are likely purposefully keeping the accurate info from you personally. BTW don't get down on yourself, your questions are GREAT, that is what made me see the light!

I CAN'T BELIEVE you looked at those graphs. Don't you know what curiosity did to the cat (but then it hunted fewer bunnies I bet Heh Heh). But I am glad you once again pointed out the truth. Crayons, REALLY?

And now that you have outed the enviro gyro (hey it rhymes!) whackos. Of course I once tasted crude and I can understand why they would hate it -just sayin.

Horatio, he nailed you there. Greed and giving the finger to the future is NOT a moral belief, just Darwin duking it out with the universe baby!

Can anyone deny Bush didn't raise taxes for the war? NO, you can't. And look at what good shape we are in economically now. All the people who make a lot of money have WAY more and can now spend it so we can have jobs/ And those silly soldiers thinking that they wouldn't enter combat. All of them are liberals, so they deserve to fight their friends the Mooslims. And then Obama comes along and he forces us to pay for grandma's death panel, when I already pointe out the other option is MUCH cheaper (river's are self cleaning for those who say it would cause more pollution)

And Bowers. the government doesn't need to take ANY of our money. They can just print whatever they need, and there is no need for taxes at ALL! Taxes don't originate in the government. they come from us ( I was going to write "you idiot" but I refrain from hominid attacks on people).

And how Dare this Kathleen Syphilis character (Ok one hominid) make WELLNESS free, unless she is having the government print out the money for each visit and that seems like an inefficient way to do things.

Wait a second. I am starting to Wonder if somebody stole the DOCTORS identity. Is this new guy SPOOFING the DOCTOR? that would be unfair, because that would make my job much harder.
I am not going to write any more until you post a picture of the REAL DOCTOR holding todays newspaper

CD (Cadbury's Bulldog, in case you skipped my previous post)

tonylearns said...

the REAL DOCTOR would have called me CB in solidarity. I am NOT wasting anymore of my time with you until I see that picture!

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.


Okay fine. I have 30 different allergies, Tony and I now demand that they be covered. Anyone who opposes this is a heartless individual and likely pro pollen.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.

hahaha, alright, your are hereby known to me as Cadbury's bulldog. In case you were wondering, Jay Cadbury arose from some jerk over at realclimate named ray ladbury and my love of the cadbury egg, but I suspect you already knew that anyway.

Anonymous said...

"Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd."


Seriously, WTF?!

What sort of tosser would sign his posts at the beginning, using a tautological affectation of his claimed qualifications (and incorrectly cased, in the process), when he is completely surrounded by folk as qualified as is he, and very likely more so?

And the purile crap that always follows is just as unbelievable. If the "phd" wasn't simply bought from an internet 'school', the granting institution should be alerted so that they can immediately review the serious deficiency in their postgraduate program that permitted one such as the chocolate bar to graduate.

Or is this simply a very earnest attempt at Poe...?

Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq. (with lashings of whipped cream)

Anonymous said...

Well there ya go.

Refreshing would have answered my question - it is just some tosser pretending.

So, JC pdh is name for the killfile. Well noted.

Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII, Esq. (with lashings of whipped cream)

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.


The good doctor does not deny that many of the people here are smarter than he. However, the good doctor believes he has a superior sense of right and wrong. Furthermore, the good doctor alleges that Eli, Lucia and Gambino have wasted a tremendous amount of time learning about models that have failed. The good doctor is not only skeptical of climate models but almost all models in general. For example, an agent from our health provider tried to convince me to go on a high deductible plan where you pay up to $1500, and after that, everything is covered. My other option was to pay as I go, which I did. The good doctor is happy to report that his medical expenses for the year are at $900. Now, of course the health agent told me that I could get in a car crash tomorrow and the plan I chose would be bad...but who ended up being right? The good doctor's brain crushed the model.

willard said...

Yes, but decarbonization.

Oh, and speaking of Welfare State, here's one for you, CB:


Is this the same Matt Ridley quoted on the cover of our good Bishop's book?

Anonymous said...

Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.


Poor Willard, allow the good doctor to smack you in the head with his trust boomerang of honesty.

"But there was something the series didn’t tell us: how much of this you helped to pay for."

-ho ho ho, the article never answered this question, so for all we know, Tamara paid for it all herself. Furthermore, you didn't account for the massive transfer of wealth she engaged in:

"This endeavour was not wholly successful. Channel 5 showed her supervising the refurbishment of her £45m home in London, in which she commissioned a £1m bathtub carved from Mexican crystal, an underground swimming pool complex, her own nightclub, a lift for her Ferrari, a bowling alley with crystal-studded balls and a spa and massage parlour for her five dogs, to save her the trouble of taking them to Harrods to have their hair sprayed and their nails painted.

Let's just start from the top, the million pound bathub made from Mexican crystal: I suspect the crystal had to be imported from Mexico, so you would have guys in Mexico shaping and polishing it, let's be conservative and say that only took 2 people. Next, it has to be shipped via truck to the coast or an airport by somebody. Then, it comes to England by plane or by boat, where it has to be again put onto a truck, and you figure it takes at least 2 people to load the bathtub onto the truck. Finally, it gets to the house where we can presume at least 2 people were installing the bathroom...I'll stop here.

Maybe you should quit crying about other people's success and try to make something of yourself. Envy is worse than greed, Willard. I can promise you this, if you spend the rest of your life posting complaints on the internet you're going to earn what you deserve...0!

tonylearns said...


DOCTOR Cadbury has so easily eviscerated your arguments.
All that money she is spending on a bathtub is creating JOBS. And important ones. The skills involved in making the crystal bathtub, - the shipping jobs and installation. And think of the carving and polishing. Why the next Hubble telescope lens can be tidied up by these mexican workers at a HUGE savings if we replace those technocrats with these guys. Mexicans are hard workers I am told, not like those lazy scientists.
If the GOVERNMENT had stolen that money from her just think of how it would likely have been wasted instead of the great productive use she put it to. Imagine the loss of quality of life if she had had to suffer with one of these. http://www.mostexpensiverecords.com/general/4-most-expensive-bathtubs-in-the-world.html

CB (Cadbury's bulldog if you don't remember)

willard said...


Bathtubs are side issues. Talking about Mexicans is not enough. Here's the secret recipe to regai prosperity:

> COSTS are rising everywhere for American corporations, from energy to employee health insurance premiums. Yet in their drive to cut expenses, most notably by moving factories and call centers to other countries, they are overlooking the escalating cost of the executive suite. It's time to apply market logic to this disturbing trend and begin outsourcing chief executives. This measure would unlock tremendous value for shareholders.


This is the only rational conclusion. And yet Reason magazine never mentioned it. And yet our good DOCTOR Cadbury prefers moralism to this secret recipe.

Let's wonder why.