5 ms·

Your source is a random blogspot.com who claims that there's ambiguity because they consider the term "caused by" to be ambiguous. I stopped reading there.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
lliamander 7y ago
David Friedman is an economist at Santa Clara University. The argument relates not to climate science itself, but to the methodology on study measuring the consensus of climate scientists. It's pretty easy to follow.
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  David Friedman is a well known libertarian and sometime anarchocapitalist whose moral and political philosophy is notably at odds with the concepts invoked by those who call for large action to tackle climate change. The fact that he's smart doesn't change the conflict of outlooks.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    He happens to believe (or accepts) the IPCC findings, he just disagrees about the economic implications, which is his prerogative.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
      That's not at odds with what I wrote. What mattered was the original description of him as "an economist at ..." which effectively neuters his very public positions on things like coordinated action w.r.t. climate change. He's absolutely entitled to his beliefs, but shouldn't be cited as if "oh wow, an ECONOMIST at SANTA CLARA says this, so ..."
      - lliamander 7y ago
        The fact that he's an economist at a respectable institution means that he's eminently qualified to comment the economic impacts of climate policy. But of course, this has nothing to do with the subject of the blog post, which is whether Cook paper asserting that "97% agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming" is at best a misleading application of statistics. There is no need to have a particular background in climatology to understand whether the Cook paper was methodological sound, just a background in statistics. The argument Friedman advances is quite straight-forward, and you are welcome address the argument rather than try to disqualify him as a source.
        PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
        I don't want to discredit him as a source. I want him acknowledged as a source with a pre-determined axe to grind. He's smart, he's clever, he's sometimes right. But he's not J. Random "Economist from Somewhere University".
        lliamander 7y ago
        OK. I acknowledge that he has a bias that stems from his anarcho-capitalism. My point is stating that he was an economist at a respectable university was not to disguise his bias, but to emphasize that he wasn't just some random blogger, which was apparently a barrier for some people when it came to assessing his argument.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

lliamander 7y ago

David Friedman is an economist at Santa Clara University. The argument relates not to climate science itself, but to the methodology on study measuring the consensus of climate scientists. It's pretty easy to follow.

PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
David Friedman is a well known libertarian and sometime anarchocapitalist whose moral and political philosophy is notably at odds with the concepts invoked by those who call for large action to tackle climate change. The fact that he's smart doesn't change the conflict of outlooks.
- lliamander 7y ago
  He happens to believe (or accepts) the IPCC findings, he just disagrees about the economic implications, which is his prerogative.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    That's not at odds with what I wrote. What mattered was the original description of him as "an economist at ..." which effectively neuters his very public positions on things like coordinated action w.r.t. climate change. He's absolutely entitled to his beliefs, but shouldn't be cited as if "oh wow, an ECONOMIST at SANTA CLARA says this, so ..."
    - lliamander 7y ago
      The fact that he's an economist at a respectable institution means that he's eminently qualified to comment the economic impacts of climate policy. But of course, this has nothing to do with the subject of the blog post, which is whether Cook paper asserting that "97% agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming" is at best a misleading application of statistics. There is no need to have a particular background in climatology to understand whether the Cook paper was methodological sound, just a background in statistics. The argument Friedman advances is quite straight-forward, and you are welcome address the argument rather than try to disqualify him as a source.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
        I don't want to discredit him as a source. I want him acknowledged as a source with a pre-determined axe to grind. He's smart, he's clever, he's sometimes right. But he's not J. Random "Economist from Somewhere University".
        lliamander 7y ago
        OK. I acknowledge that he has a bias that stems from his anarcho-capitalism. My point is stating that he was an economist at a respectable university was not to disguise his bias, but to emphasize that he wasn't just some random blogger, which was apparently a barrier for some people when it came to assessing his argument.