I have read a lot of stupid crap spewed by the left, but this guy takes the cake. Paul Biegler, postdoctoral fellow in 'bioethics' (whatever the hell that is) at Monash University in Australia claims that 'climate skeptics' like me are 'captive to basic emotions':
Given the choice of $100 now or $120 in a month, most take the money and run, sacrificing what amounts to an annual return on their one-month investment of 240 per cent. How could we be so dumb? It turns out that the allure of the immediate reward is strongly reinforced by emotions at the more pleasant end of the spectrum. Put simply, it often feels better to be rewarded straight away than to wait.Paul, has anyone ever made a promise to you that was not kept? The reason why most take the immediate $100 over $120 in one month is because they are uncertain whether or not they will receive the $120. They do not have a certain return on their investment of 240% annualized. Their return on the investment is a random variable that ranges between minus 100% (don't receive anything) and positive 240%. Given those facts, all but the least risk-averse people will take the certain $100 now.
Before I commence with my criticism, I must give Paul credit for one insight. Unlike Al Gore and some others, he does not try to claim that the 'imposed measures to reduce our carbon footprint' will help the economy.
Climate scepticism is a strong candidate example of temporal discounting. A truckload of science supports global warming and its attendant perils. Yet, addressing this temporally far-flung threat, while generating distant benefit for our planet's inheritors, will cost us real pleasure now. Self-imposed measures to reduce our carbon footprint do not bring universal glee, and the carbon tax will hit both our wallets and our wellbeing.
Paul, there is no 'truckload of science' that supports global warming. What we have is a small thimblefull of evidence, much of which has been falsified, subjected to questionable statistical techniques, or subjected to data mining. To review the objective evidence:
There is no evidence the earth's atmosphere has warmed since 1998 and very little if at all before that.
There is no evidence that the oceans are warming.
There is no evidence of an increase in the number or severity of tornadoes
I could go on and on. For anyone who wishes to review the objective evidence, it is available.
And even many people who have not reviewed the actual data have become skeptics. You know why, Paul? Because most people can detect BS when they hear it.
Received the following via email from Paul:
Thanks Jim - not sure how to take this honour!My response via email to Paul:
I do appreciate your response and I'll certainly take your comments on board as my own views on this subject evolve.
Best wishes to you and yours over Xmas.
Thanks for your response, Paul. I have appended it to my blog post.If you truly want the global warming alarmists theories to be given serious consideration, ask Mann, Briffa, Trenberth, Jones, et al, to:1. Share their data with anyone who asks for it. Contrary to their ridiculous claims, this is little or no hassle or inconvenience. I am a researcher in economics and have had many requests for my data. It is usually handled by simply emailing someone a spreadsheet. When the climatologists publish a new paper, they could make the data available on a website for anyone to download.2. Likewise share their computer programs used in statistical analyses of the data.3. Stop trying to suppress the 'skeptics' research. Both the alarmists' and skeptics' research will stand or fall on its own two feet.