Major US Gov Study says Climate Change will shrink US economy and kill thousands

I wouldn't' either. I was referring to basic stats... copy below again.

And here is a quote from Tol from that link. She pushed bad info that impacted her credibility and wouldn’t back down when it was pointed out to her.

Judith: Statistics is a branch of mathematics. Right and wrong are strictly defined. These papers are wrong in the mathematical sense of the word. I think you have done a disservice by lending your credibility to these papers.​

 

I appreciate your pulling out that exchange directly again. Very telling. But then Curry goes ahead and invites Tol to write up a more formal version of the critique--which again I take as a general reflection of her willingness to learn, discuss, explore, and debate. The fact that she "highlighted" papers that had statistical flaws is not inherently a sign of her being evil (jk). Hell, two weeks ago Nature had to go through the embarrassing exercise of retracting/correcting a full-blown, peer-reviewed, high-publicity article because of bad statistics. This is not whataboutism, mind you, but to say that even the editorial processes of one of the two major science journals in the world can get it wrong. Not sure why anyone would think Curry should have a better mistake-free success rate than Nature on her blog.

but again, I appreciate your posting those links.

info on the Nature incident which you are no doubt already aware of--others might not be. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/high-profile-ocean-warming-paper-get-correction

on edit: reading through the comments on the Tol guest post on Curry's blog, interesting to see the editor of the journal one of the papers was originally published in write:

"bill | November 8, 2011 at 5:25 pm |
"On an earlier thread, someone referred to Dr Tol as a straight shooter. In my limited dealings with him, I’d agree with that. So while its a bit disappointing that he is shredding a paper ( version of which) was pubished in one of my journals, Energy & Environment, I don’t object to his doing so. Debate, discussion, about energy/policy issues is good. That was the original vision of E & E. What has, over such a long time, been so disappointing, is the lack of debate; or at least, the lack of engagement from one side. Possibly things are moving forward, and we are leaving behind us juvenile sloganising like 'the science is settled',"
​

which to me speaks (among other things) of the increasingly hit-or-miss quality of a lot of academic publishing

​

 

I don't. More importantly, (while my expectation is a Scientist with credibility should) I don't see her blog as trying to discern what's a bogus paper or not. She defended her approach to publishing those two bad papers as a type of "free speech" (no gatekeeping) approach (of course pushing only "bad" papers/articles that support her contrarian viewpoint isn't free speech either). Thus, you can assume that there will be more, and there has been more, bogus papers/articles on her blog. So, it's not so much a mistake, but it's a feature of her blog, leaving it up to the typical reader to discern good from bad- not likely to happen. Reputable science journals do act as gatekeeper, and they sometime make mistakes and let bad paper through - it's not a feature though.

 

I'm almost through reading all the comments on the Keith Kloor column--sounds like a greatest hits list of players, Tobis, Tol, Pielke, Gavin, etc. (not Curry!). I think there's some genuinely good discussion there about the purposes of a blog such as Curry's, the legitimacy of Curry's intentions in running such a blog, and the distinctions to be made between blogs such as Curry's (and others') and peer-reviewed publications ranging from the WSJ to Science and Nature. Good stuff.

 

@txtony , as luck would have it Curry announced this morning the completion of her ocean/sea-level rise report. The announcement is at https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/ and she provides a link to the report itself. Would be very curious to get your impressions both of her summary at ClimateEtc and also of the report itself if you have the time or inclination to look into it.

 

Just want to re-post this for the must read New Yorker article.

Excerpt:

When oil industry shill scientists are used to damage the credibility of established science some people will obviously buy into it.

 

This is all a lie, today I had to wear a sweater so clearly it's a hoax, just like the Muellar investigation

 

I am not finished reading this back and forth, but it is a high quality discussion. Geez, I need to do more reading....

 

here's a more reasonable response to the NCA report than what is suggested by the OP's thread title

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-change-is-affordable-1543362461

 

here's another one

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-climate-wont-crash-the-economy-1543276899

 

I see quite a bit of complaints that this report (and other one in the past) is doom and gloom, a typical complaint base on ignorance (or purposefully tactic to misled) that all these reports do is focus on the extreme. The WH did just that the other days. These reports are basically risk assessments that cover a range of scenarios. It simply not true that all they do is focus on the most extreme.

 

in fact this is a major point the WSJ pieces, that the actual content of the report does not match up with the catastrophe narrative of the so-called mainstream media.

 

How is climate change suddently Trumps fault. No other president ever seemed to give a **** when the Elites were stuffing their pockets with money to keep that oil going

 

Because all that matters to human welfare is GDP? The effects of warming planet will be catrastrophic due to a multitude of reasons — it can’t be summed up by just looking at GDP which will mostly just capture how the wealthy are faring.

 

It is his fault (and the fault of his party and their financial donors) that he is trying to undermine public understanding of the problem and obstruct constructive agreements and planning to deal with it.

 

Haven't you heard? Whoever is president is immediate at fault for all things.

But dear leader is a fighter and isn't going to let that be. His motto is it's everyone fault but me, I'm the best and very smart, and only I alone can solve these problems.

Well, great. Go solve it.

 

"catastrophe" is not a scientific term but rather a subjective, evaluative one.

 

If you want to limit discussion here to only scientific terminology, that means you don’t want to discuss what we *should* do to deal with the problem, because “should” is not a scientific term but rather a subjective, evaluative one.

To deal with this issue we have to be able to agree on the objective facts, yes, but we also have to have common agreement on more “subjective, evaluative” claims — like what constitutes a catastrophe that warrants actual response.

 

I was merely making an observation, you'll note I did not make any kind of argument about limiting discussion to only scientific terminology. "Catastrophe" is a theory-laden, interpretive term; and in the context of climate change, has the dual disadvantages of being a concept that is both speculative and remote. Catastrophe is not a term that is amenable to a common agreement on "objective facts." that's all I was suggesting.

 

I take my reusable Astros grocery bag when I go shopping, so there's that.