4 ms·

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.

4 ms·

He happens to believe (or accepts) the IPCC findings, he just disagrees about the economic implications, which is his prerogative.

by lliamander 7y ago

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.