11 Oct 2018

Nordhaus vs. IPCC

All Posts, Climate Change, Energy, Shameless Self-Promotion 9 Comments

I’m going to write more on this in the coming weeks, but for now, let me point you to my reaction at IER to William Nordhaus winning the Nobel, on the same day the IPCC’s latest came out. An excerpt:

Now, any normal citizen reading the above two samples from our major media—who ostensibly are all up-to-speed on the “consensus” and would never dream of letting ideology get in the way of the empirical evidence—would be quite certain that William Nordhaus’ work supports the IPCC’s call to limit global warming to 1.5°C. And yet, as I’ll show in the next section, this is utterly false. Nordhaus’ work shows that such an ambitious climate change goal is far too aggressive.

9 Responses to “Nordhaus vs. IPCC”

  1. Reply
    Major_Freedom says:
    at

    Climate change is back in the MSM cycle **on purpose**, to change the “narrative” (i.e. social programming through information suppression and fake news as replacement -> public kept in dark), to distract from the truth bombs about the Demokkkrats rigging the 2016 election.

  2. Reply
    Tel says:
    at

    I predict we will see Nordhaus getting the “nudge” to bring his results into line with the media reports.

    This hoopla is for the purpose of creating a narrative and Nordhaus would be rather unappreciative to turn around and go against the narrative. That kind of thing gets frowned upon.

  3. Reply
    Andrew says:
    at

    I was early! I knew you would have something to say about this, Bob.

  4. Reply
    Major_Freedom says:
    at

    Independent audit uncovers massive fraud in the global warming data

    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/independent-audit-exposes-the-fraud-in-global-warming-data/

    • Reply
      Harold says:
      at

      The article does not mention who did the study and the link to “The Australian” is paywalled, so it is not easy to check further.

      The site itself appears to be a parody of denialism, but as Poe suggested it is impossible to tell the difference between a parody and a genuine nutcase.

      One example “This entire theory that before the Industrial Revolution, our planet’s atmosphere was somehow pristine and uncontaminated by human-made pollutants has been also proven to be completely bogus.”

      There is no such theory, r even hypothesis or suggestion.

      The next article on pole shifts must be a parody. ” Areas that are traditionally cold are getting warm and vice versa.” is just nonsense.

Leave a Reply