4 ms·

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph

by quink 13y ago

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley and http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matt_Ridley http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Matt_Ridley If you want to have an idea as to his economic credentials, he's, in a nutshell, responsible for the first bank run in the UK in about 130 years. Here are just the effects of the state I live in: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/climate-change-impacts/queensland http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-scien...

vixen99 13y ago
So try this one: http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ Nothing to do with Ridley. Presumably there are lot of stupid people in Australia according to you and judging from your recent election.
- quink 13y ago
  OK, let's watch this. 0:23-ish: No one in the mainstream media in Australia has ever told anyone about Henry fucking Ergas? Well, this is full of shit already. He also ran Concept Economics. > Concept Economics, the consultancy that recently estimated the costs of the National Broadband Network outweighed the benefits by up to $20 billion, has gone into administration. Sheesh, what is it with these climate skeptics and their businesses going under? 0:48: Lack of action across the world? Most expensive carbon tax in the world? Kind sir, I have a graph to cure that ailment: http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2Faveragetaxrates.png http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%... Austria is AUT. Australia is AUS, in case there's any confusion following the whiplash you just got by this fact-whipping. 1:18: Thank you for that idiocy. Australia is the world's highest CO2 per capita emitter with any population to speak of, apart from the UAE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse.... It has the dirtiest power station in the entire OECD, which alone produce 1/1800th the greenhouse gas emissions on the planet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station You know what, I'm done. I will go on, but considering such a litany of error within a minute and a half, I can spend my time vastly better. But like I said, I'll watch it for amusement value. Meanwhile, you go ahead and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eo... Edit: OK, just wanted to add that the carbon tax does not "cost" 10 billion a year by any means. That's near enough the revenue being raised by the government through carbon pricing and near enough all of it makes it back into the economy through various means. One example, there's the rise in the tax-free threshold. Apparently billions of dollars being spent in removing the lowest income earners in the country from the income tax system is money wasted on reducing carbon dioxide a fraction of a percent? I don't think the story goes quite like that. All this is just another example of Christopher Monckton displaying a serious case of illiteracy of various sorts: http://topher.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/50-to-1-sources-and-maths.pdf http://topher.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/50-to-1-sour... You're a fool. Thank you for your skepticism, but in this case you've been had. By all means keep it up though, just double-check and don't be misled :) Edit 2: $3.2 quadrillion for each degree? Sigh, and you actually were brave enough to show this crap to other people? Wow. If you really wanted to do it on the cheap (and that number is still very made up), you could do it for much less, albeit with side-effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_...
- quink 13y ago
  Also, this: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17584/is-the-cost-of-preventing-climate-change-50-times-higher-than-the-cost-of-adapti http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17584/is-the-cos... Also, the conclusion after the introduction of the carbon tax was that GDP was 0.1% lower than if it hadn't been there. How you get from there to 80% is very funny maths. Hang on, not funny, pathetic.
AndrewKemendo 13y ago
This is a great example two fallacies in one post. The first is a fine ad hominem example: "This is just stupid" -> Links to the author -> He is not qualified. Does not refute his claims The second is the Hasty Generalization fallacy: Referencing a single instance as indicative of all areas
- quink 13y ago
  > Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm. He caused a bank run, which is all about balancing predictions with risks. It's all about evaluating economic impacts. He is entirely unqualified to make the statement above from that single data point alone. About the hasty generalisation, I didn't mean to indicate that these would be the effects across the world, and I though that much was obvious. Most of the world doesn't even have coral reefs, for example. It's just that a global perspective might be in order, and most people here aren't likely to live in Queensland.
  - AndrewKemendo 13y ago
    >He caused a bank run, which is all about balancing predictions with risks. It's all about evaluating economic impacts. He is entirely unqualified to make the statement above from that single data point alone. Oh I won't refute that, perhaps he is unqualified. That doesn't however refute his argument. It only states that you'll have to look at the argument that much more carefully because he is not likely to be a great source. What is common with folks justifying the ad hominem is that it is really just a short hand for the argument from authority fallacy. It is implicitly advancing the idea that the merits of the argument rest on the person giving them as though if it were someone else it would be more correct, which of course is wrong. I think it is reasonable to assume that most people look at the person making an argument and if they are confident in the person, they will take the argument as a truthful assessment. To me though this is lazy and essentially delegates reason, so IMO it is always worth identifying.

by quink 13y ago

vixen99 13y ago

So try this one: http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/ Nothing to do with Ridley. Presumably there are lot of stupid people in Australia according to you and judging from your recent election.

quink 13y ago
OK, let's watch this. 0:23-ish: No one in the mainstream media in Australia has ever told anyone about Henry fucking Ergas? Well, this is full of shit already. He also ran Concept Economics. > Concept Economics, the consultancy that recently estimated the costs of the National Broadband Network outweighed the benefits by up to $20 billion, has gone into administration. Sheesh, what is it with these climate skeptics and their businesses going under? 0:48: Lack of action across the world? Most expensive carbon tax in the world? Kind sir, I have a graph to cure that ailment: http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%2Fphotos%2Faveragetaxrates.png http://static.politifact.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact%... Austria is AUT. Australia is AUS, in case there's any confusion following the whiplash you just got by this fact-whipping. 1:18: Thank you for that idiocy. Australia is the world's highest CO2 per capita emitter with any population to speak of, apart from the UAE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse.... It has the dirtiest power station in the entire OECD, which alone produce 1/1800th the greenhouse gas emissions on the planet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station You know what, I'm done. I will go on, but considering such a litany of error within a minute and a half, I can spend my time vastly better. But like I said, I'll watch it for amusement value. Meanwhile, you go ahead and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eo... Edit: OK, just wanted to add that the carbon tax does not "cost" 10 billion a year by any means. That's near enough the revenue being raised by the government through carbon pricing and near enough all of it makes it back into the economy through various means. One example, there's the rise in the tax-free threshold. Apparently billions of dollars being spent in removing the lowest income earners in the country from the income tax system is money wasted on reducing carbon dioxide a fraction of a percent? I don't think the story goes quite like that. All this is just another example of Christopher Monckton displaying a serious case of illiteracy of various sorts: http://topher.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/50-to-1-sources-and-maths.pdf http://topher.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/50-to-1-sour... You're a fool. Thank you for your skepticism, but in this case you've been had. By all means keep it up though, just double-check and don't be misled :) Edit 2: $3.2 quadrillion for each degree? Sigh, and you actually were brave enough to show this crap to other people? Wow. If you really wanted to do it on the cheap (and that number is still very made up), you could do it for much less, albeit with side-effects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_...
quink 13y ago
Also, this: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17584/is-the-cost-of-preventing-climate-change-50-times-higher-than-the-cost-of-adapti http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17584/is-the-cos... Also, the conclusion after the introduction of the carbon tax was that GDP was 0.1% lower than if it hadn't been there. How you get from there to 80% is very funny maths. Hang on, not funny, pathetic.

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

This is a great example two fallacies in one post. The first is a fine ad hominem example: "This is just stupid" -> Links to the author -> He is not qualified. Does not refute his claims The second is the Hasty Generalization fallacy: Referencing a single instance as indicative of all areas

quink 13y ago
> Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm. He caused a bank run, which is all about balancing predictions with risks. It's all about evaluating economic impacts. He is entirely unqualified to make the statement above from that single data point alone. About the hasty generalisation, I didn't mean to indicate that these would be the effects across the world, and I though that much was obvious. Most of the world doesn't even have coral reefs, for example. It's just that a global perspective might be in order, and most people here aren't likely to live in Queensland.
- AndrewKemendo 13y ago
  >He caused a bank run, which is all about balancing predictions with risks. It's all about evaluating economic impacts. He is entirely unqualified to make the statement above from that single data point alone. Oh I won't refute that, perhaps he is unqualified. That doesn't however refute his argument. It only states that you'll have to look at the argument that much more carefully because he is not likely to be a great source. What is common with folks justifying the ad hominem is that it is really just a short hand for the argument from authority fallacy. It is implicitly advancing the idea that the merits of the argument rest on the person giving them as though if it were someone else it would be more correct, which of course is wrong. I think it is reasonable to assume that most people look at the person making an argument and if they are confident in the person, they will take the argument as a truthful assessment. To me though this is lazy and essentially delegates reason, so IMO it is always worth identifying.