This article is a re-statement in other words of the economic calculation problem. Government funding severs at the root the only rational connection we have between what the people want society's scarce resources to produce, and what is actually produced. So we shouldn't be surprised when it produces corruption and conflict, because that's all it can produce.

"There is an almost infinite number of brilliant ideas that need public money to show their true value, and governments need a filtering system."

Note that Don's article didn't say:
a) what that alleged "true value" is
b) how it could be known, and
c) what that filtering system could be.

Well guess what? No statist ever answers these questions which are necessary to take their assertions out of the irrational sphere. Because they can't. That's the economic calculation problem.

That's why there should be a separation of separation of science and state: for the same reasons there should be a separation of church and state. Because because, once you remove the rational element:
- all the same irrational credulity, power-worship, and anti-human sentiment is liable to be invested in projects of state-funded "science", and
- because such scientific projects end up being for the same kinds of purposes as church purposes.

For example, nothing could have seemed more innocuous and scientific than the funding of climatology - measuring temperatures, lots of physics and all that. So who would have predicted that it would end up throwing us back to a dark ages of the selling of indulgences - carbon taxes - to fund a monopoly corporation of moral superiority (was the church, now the state) to attone for the impending cataclysm caused by man's moral fault, and lead us to a morally righteous state in which all economic problems are permanently solved - (was paradise, now sustainability). It's just a blatant re-run of the west's traditional religious narrative, only this time with the church replaced by the state.

The problem with science for sciences sake is, the commercial spin offs may be far and few?
Gravitational waves eh?
That might explain the occasional wobbly boot syndrome, but has very little practical applications? Thus far?
A skateboard that floats on thin air, surfs the gravitational waves; (They're big at Bondi!)or a solar powered George Jackson air car, heading south on a solar wind?
And would be nice, as an application of zero gravity, within a very confined and precise area?
I'd imagine there'd be some serious side effects, as one traversed from point A to point B?
Like floating weightless, mooing, meowing, yelping/whelping Dingoes, dogs, cows, cats and horses, hanging on for dear life to weightless, bones, hay bales, chickens, the nose bag etc; and all as distressed as all hell, as would be innumerable extremely irate owners; but particularly those out walking said dog; or riding the horse! Whoa back there Pegasus!
Now we could focus on thing like very rapid rail running underground and in a vacuum, which would easily allow speeds as high as 4,000 klms PH, or near the speed of light, if we could but power them with rail guns.
Inertia, would be a bit of a problem?
I mean the train could just accelerate out of sight, leaving the passengers just sat there!?
[The night was dark and stormy, the air was filled with beer?
Someone took the train away, and left me standing/ hanging there!] The trouble with apologies, nobody hears them in a vacuum!
Rhrosty.

It's unfortunate that science has to rely on funding, but that's the economic system that all societies have, and have always had, including communist systems. All activities need funding.

Without the constraints of funding, science would be light years ahead of it's current position.

Whoa Rhrosty!

Stream of consciousness man.

Time to keep off them chemicals http://youtu.be/y_Ey3AucXFc

Pete

In all fairness, attempting to determine up front which ideas in science will pan out and which will fall by the wayside is difficult. If the answer to research is known before conducting it, there is no point in doing the research. So research funding will always be a bit of a bet in the dark.

Some ways of better managing the risk are to go on the proposal background (does past research indicate the proposed research question is worth asking and will produce useful outcomes) and track record (researchers that have delivered in the past are more likely to deliver again). It is all imperfect.

The trouble with having a market driven approach only is that short-termism becomes the order of the day and little emphasis is put on the big basic questions where the true novel breakthroughs will arise. That is why Governments should be involved in funding research. But even this can become a two-edged sword if ideology becomes the driver for research, such as Lysenkoism in the USSR.

On to the last point about climate change research, I find it somewhat ironic of Don Aitkin to be suggesting there is some sort of conspiracy involved - at least in the research. The research is quite clear, the Earth is warming and human emissions of greenhouse gases are playing a major role. What to do with this result is a whole different question.

Quote Don
"The truth is that ‘climate change’ and climate science have not ever been exposed to the kind of due diligence that is customary in every other form of science, let alone in the world outside. And we all suffer as a consequence.

It is hard to think of any piece of science which has been more rigorously checked than climate science, it has been confirmed by scientific bodies representing all the major countries of the world. Climate science is constantly being tested and checked against reality, and has been for some 200 years. It has been clearly demonstrated that GHGs absorb infrared radiation and that this retards surface cooling. The basic process that underlies this mechanism has been well understood since the early 1960s and was first suspected in the 1820s.

In point of fact the premier organization charged with doing due diligence on climate science is the IPCC, but as you reject its conclusions it is disingenuous to ask for another government investigation, which you hope might produce a result which is more likely to reflect your personal views.

The only consequences of being wrong about AGW is that the air, water and land will be cleaner, the chances of fighting a war over access to fossil fuels resources will be eliminated, plus there is a good chance energy will become cheaper in the long run.

The consequences of believing that AGW is not occurring when it is are dire.
We would see a serious reduction in food crops, droughts, fires, flooding and more intense storms, devastating damage to the natural world (for example the Great Barrier Reef) and armed conflict for the remaining resources

Agronomist says "The research is quite clear, the Earth is warming and human emissions of greenhouse gases are playing a major role".

Anyone who can make that statement is not keeping up with the research, & singing only from the anointed hymn book.

Don seeks to claim respectability via his past life where he had roles helping to select worth while science projects. However, when it comes to climate science, his recent posts reflect ramblings from a true blue denier. In a recent post, his prophet in castigating climate science was Lubos Motl whose "trustworthy views" were mere thought ramblings, with no references to scientific research backing any of his views. Don's comments in long series of posts reflected total misunderstanding of the scientific process. In Don's world, anyone can comment on climate science, and be believed. The only qualification such a person needs is to be anti climate science.

"The truth is that 'climate change' and climate science have not ever been exposed to the kind of due diligence that is customary in every other form of science, let alone in the world outside. And we all suffer as a consequence."

Very true! Sadly, ideology was the rationale for Australian governments acting so dysfunctionally. There was -- and still is -- no scientific or economic justification for spending so much money on pushing the AGW cause.

Implementing the RET was arguably the Howard Government's worst decision.

It remains to be seen whether the responsible Minister, who is a committed warmist, overcomes his conflict of interest and acts instead in the national interest by rescinding the RET altogether.

Hasbeen,

"Anyone who can make that statement is not keeping up with the research, & singing only from the anointed hymn book."

Lol!...(ya gotta love this forum for its climate wonks)

Excellent post, Don. Your experience in the research grant process and your explanation of it is interesting and informative.

Interesting comment by Jardine K Jardine too.

Unfortunately, the post has gone right of the heads of the usual suspects - those whose comments demonstrate little understanding and just a repetition of the climate doomsday mantra and ideologically motivated reasoning.

There was no intent on my part to suggest that there was some sort of conspiracy with respect to climate science (setting aside the machinations of the Climategate people). What I am suggesting is that once government had decided that Australia had to be on the Rio92 wagon, what was needed from science was support for that position. That was not hard to find, and once academies had been provided with funds to support such endeavours, there was little likelihood of any dispassionate examination of either the science or the economic policies that were to follow from its argued conclusions.

It's really hard to resile from position that have been taken up with enthusiasm, and that applies to governments no less than individuals.

For Jardine K. J., 'true value' is what we wonder could come from an invention that has yet to be developed, let alone commercialised.

How would we know? The old Industrial Research and Development Board (another of the bodies on which I once sat) used to provide funds to develop a few such inventions so that we could see whether there was likely to real fruit at the end.

The filtering system? Boards, committees and councils, that are given the task of sort out the wheat from the chaff. At the end of their work they put up recommendations to the Minister.

In that period I had the good fortune to spend some time with the National Science Foundation in Washington, and met a man who did what we later did in the IR&DB. He told me that many inventions, while brilliant, just didn't make good commercial sense — too much would already be invested in inventories, or processes, or networks. Yes, the invention was clever, and better — but not that much better or cleverer. It was a salutary lesson, and it came earlier in my period in this business.

"It's really hard to resile from position that have been taken up with enthusiasm, and that applies to governments no less than individuals."

It is actually quite easy Don, you just have to recognise when faced with the evidence that you might be wrong. Most scientists do that frequently.

Agronomist,

"It is actually quite easy Agronomist, you just have to recognise when faced with the evidence that you might be wrong. Most rational, appropriately skeptical people do that frequently.

Unfortunately, those who are inclined to follow cults tend to be gullible. No matter what the evidence, they cannot accept they may be wrong. I've seen no sign in your comments that you challenge your beliefs, or that you read widely information that does not support your beliefs,

Actually Peter Lang, any scientist that has applied for funding would be quite familiar with Dons recollection of how science is funded. The only people who would find it 'interesting' and 'informative' are those that would have no experience of it, i.e. those ignorant of the process.

Which of course, speaks more about yourself than those that you say this information has "gone over their heads". Quite the opposite I'm afraid.

Unfortunately, those that are within cults (like the climate change denial cult) often cannot see where they are in the greater scheme of things.

Bugsy.

"Actually Peter Lang, any scientist that has applied for funding would be quite familiar with Dons recollection of how science is funded. The only people who would find it 'interesting' and 'informative' are those that would have no experience of it, i.e. those ignorant of the process.

Which of course, speaks more about yourself "

This comment about yourself. It demonstrates you make totally assumptions and build a belief on it. You have not a clue what my experience is in the are Don's article is about. Instead of making baseless assumptions, you'd be better off to ask questions. The fact you make up assumptions and strawman arguments like this demonstrates you cannot be trusted - i.e you have demonstrated you are intellectually dishonest.

Can you fill us in a bit on how much experience you've had in evaluating research proposals, selections for funding, recommendations to ministers, evaluations of the research both during and after completion? I presume you would realise you need to provide sufficient detail to make it clear what level your involvement was at.

Don
"'true value' is what we wonder could come from an invention that has yet to be developed, let alone commercialised"

1. why is that 'true value'?
2. what if others don't agree with your concept of true value as concerns their own forced contribution?
3. who's "we"?
4. why should that particular collective be the decision-making entity? Why not some other?

There's no use telling me that the government creates bureaucracies, variously titled, to decide what is going to be state-funded, and what is not. We know that.

The point, they don't have any rational way of achieving the end they've set themselves.

They aren't capable of knowing what the subjective values of the ultimately consumers of their services are, any better than those people themselves. And they have no way of ensuring that the means they employ, are *rationally* employed to the ends they want to achieve.

Yes, the government can take funds from its subject population and spend them on science. Yes we can say that the scientific end was useful and beneficial.

What they can't do is establish any rational basis for asserting that the means sacrificed for that end, have necessarily produced more satisfactory results from the standpoint of the ultimate consumers and the ultimate human welfare criterion, however defined, than would have obtained in the absence of state funding of any given project. They can’t establish that it’s a rational use of resources.

All they do is pretend that the original economic problem – the need to rationalise scarce resources to their most valued ends - doesn't exist just because government is doing the funding.

But then the approach is irrational. The means for funding science were already scarce before we enter into any question of government funding. So the advocates of state-funded science are assuming that means are scarce and must be rationally economised if science is privately funded, otherwise losses will be greater than profit and they’ll go broke, which is the original reason why the private sector can't be trusted to fund the science the statists want the state to fund.

But then they use a double standard. They assume that means are not scarce and need not be rationally economised if science is state-funded, which is why the funds are magically available through government, which need not be concerned about the loss, because it's externalising it onto private parties.

So the advocates of state-funded science have no rational way of demonstrating whether the benefit to society would have been better if the state had not confiscated the funds and spent them on state-funded science in the first place.

* * *

By the way, notice the purely religious methodology of the warmists?

What these people are saying, is that we know we face catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve, because “experts” (who all just happen to be government-funded) declare a “consensus”. That’s it. That’s their entire argument in a nutshell. The argument is basically “Who do you think you are to dare to question your betters?” Just a rank appeal to authority – the opposite of science and rationality - and then just endlessly repeating this claim larded with non sequiturs and ad homs.

Notice the same irrational ignoring of the basic physical and economic concept of scarce resources? Policy will just magically produce improvements at no significant cost: irrational. Government as Our Holy Mother the Church all over again: omniscient, benevolent, all-competent, superior, infallible, unquestionable. The only question is one of faith: whether one is a heretic ("denialist").

The whole belief system is just a shameless complete throw-back to the dark ages.

Ask them for a rational demonstration, or how they know, that the means in question will produce better ends than the same means alternatively employed; and they don’t even understand what you’re talking about. As for how they are to know the subjective values of the human beings adversely affected in the scenarios they propose: and that’s the last thing they were concerned about! It's real burning witches stuff. They even have their nutty little holy rituals - curly light globes will save your soul from sin.

Jardine K. Jardine,

Excellent (two) comments. I agree.

However, I do see a need for state funding for basic science research.

Jardine K. Jardine,

I agree with much of your long double-post. Yes, that is the system we have, and no one much looks at it from the inside (government, universities academies, recipients) to wonder whether there might be a better way. It's much the same with Parliament: is this the best way we could govern ourselves? I used to ask questions like that when teaching, and the great majority of students had no idea — they just took it all for granted.

Part of the problem is that the whole budgetary system, everywhere, relies on moving the whole lot on one year. So this year is like last year, and next year will be like this year, with a little tweaking around the edge. The Forward Estimates have a lot to answer for!

One can agree with the Author, inasmuch, as we do need to crack on and develop our best ideas here, if only to insure our best ideas and people, stay and earn all their millions or billions here and for us!
Even if we have to invest some public money in proof of concept pilot projects, and pick winners!
And given CAN'T is the only reason we are forcing all our best ideas and our most gifted people to seek their chances offshore, we need to simply eliminate CAN'T, from any part of this conversation!
And if the Government just can't/won't pick good ideas or winners, then they need to appoint a scientific board who can!
And here I'm not talking about those who specialize inside a single discipline; but rather, those with broad knowledge/future vision!
Rhrosty.

Jardine, Scientists do not declare a "consensus". There is no vote, no emails saying "lets have a consensus". Others (I will leave it to you to find who) review thousands of published papers. They read those papers and simply tally the numbers of papers whose research shows Climate Change (anthropogenic) is probably or most probably affecting what they have observed and analysed. And tally those other papers that have alternate views: 97% to 3%. Climate Change scientists include atmospheric physicists, atmospheric chemists, glaciologists (arctic, antarctic, glaciers), fire scientists, ecologists (of many varieties), oceanographers (deep ocean currents, ocean acidification, species movement, reef experts, and more), solar scientists, permafrost scientists, soil scientist, plant scientists and many more. To lump career scientists in a group called 'warmists' does a great disservice to many if not most who spent decades gaining their knowledge and expertise.

But Tony153, if you don't label all the 97% of climate scientists that disagree with your point of view "warmists" you can't dismiss what they have written as some sort of conspiracy to keep the grant dollars rolling in.

Thankfully, Tony has shown those warmists what for.

Defending an appeal to absent authority with more appeal to absent authority, ho hum. This is the warmists' idea of proving their assertions which the temperature and CO2 data keep not proving.

The most that could be said of your methodology is that it is a secondary and subsidiary method of knowledge. It seeks to know whether, or assert that, the world faces catastrophic man-made global warming that policy could improve, by placing implicit faith in the pronouncements of authorities who all JUST HAPPEN to be government-funded.

Then when called on this tactic, we get this wide-eyed innocent "What? Us? Say that?" They are even so delicate they decline the very name of warmists. What will satisfy you then? "Those-who-allege-that-the-planet-is-not-going-to-be-habitable-by-our-grandchildren-because-of-catastrophic-manmade-global-warming-that-government-can-save-us-from-at-reasonable-cost-which-voluntary-action-could-not-provide,-but-whom-it-is-rude-to-name-warmists"? Give us a break.

You're just evidencing all the defining religious characteristics:
- assuming it's true in the first place and seeking to confirm it
- when challenged, referring off to the absent authority of a morally superior superbeing monopoly corporation
- when challenged on that, conducting the discussion on the basis that the question is to be decided by mere faith in authority. Give us a break.

As for Agronomists jibe about "conspiracy", this is just a stock-standard misrepresentation = fallacy. I didn't say it is a conspiracy, and there is no need to resort to conspiracy theory to explain the interests of a industry of government dependants on HUGE government funding, durr. But in any event, anyone unaware of agreement at the highest levels of government to use global warming as a pretext for the expansion of governmental powers, is not qualified to participate in the discussion.

Even if it were not laughable for the warmists' to pretend that the government is of no significance to the exertion of interests in the knowledge in issue, still we are left with the fact that their entire argument is only, why don't the skeptics join us in our open-ended mere credulity?

We *know* the authorities support the warmists! The problem is, the TEMPERATE AND CO2 DATA don't support them.

The extent to which human caused CO2 emissions may warm the planet has been generally overstated by the warmists. But the temperature change is not important. It is irrelevant to the policy analysis. It is irrelevant to the justification for the “actions” that the warmists keep demanding (like carbon pricing and renewable energy and the other $20 billion per year we are wasting on carbon restraint policies.

What is relevant is 1) the impacts of climate change at a regional level 2) the economic consequences of climate changes, 3) the probability that advocated policies will succeed.

The probability that the proposed policies will succeed is really important. Warmists have been encouraging governments to impose enormously damaging and wasteful policies to reduce carbon emissions. But the policies almost certainly will not succeed. To understand this better, see my ‘Submission 2’ to the Senate inquiry into repeal of the carbon tax legislation http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Clean_Energy_Legislation/Submissions. This explains why:
1. Carbon pricing cannot succeed unless it is global and unless a high proportion of global GHG emissions (e.g. 80%) are included in the pricing scheme (nsee Figure 1: “Abatement cost penalty (ratio to complete participation) versus participation rate”)
2. Global carbon pricing is unlikely to succeed
3. The costs and benefits of Australia’s carbon pricing scheme to 2050 (from Treasury’s economic analyses)

Peter
Thanks for that. Yes as soon as we consider costs we are able to enter into a zone of rationality where we can see both sides of the equation in units of a lowest common denominator. We can see things in relative proportion, the ‘ratio’ (Latin for reason) which gives us rationality, or enables it.

But you are too kind to note it won’t work in practice, just as one would be to argue that compulsory tithing won’t save our souls “in practice”. The problem is it can’t succeed even in theory. We can rationally demonstrate from the initial spending on science that the alleged net benefit is at best unknowable, and at worst positively false and fraudulent; and the statists have no answer but endless circularity.

This is what Mises effectively demonstrated in 1920 in ‘Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth’ which completely destroyed the intellectual foundations of all socialism and which the socialists went ahead and ignored at the cost of 200 million deaths, just as the warmists ignored it and have now utterly wasted hundreds of billions of dollars that could have gone to improving human beings’ lives. And they still don’t get it! They just keep banging away with the same old failed theory and failed demands.

The problem is that while the warmists are weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth over the supposed costs of alleged global warming, we get this blithe complete ignorance towards the huge costs of all their activity = irrational. Suppose the warmists on this thread were forced to pay the costs of even one day of one committee, of one layer of one government in one country, we would soon see them change their tune I’ll warrant. It is only the fact they are able to throw off the costs into the governmental ether that enables this kind of irrational, vain, corrupt, anti-human behaviour.

“However, I do see a need for state funding for basic science research.”

What could be more basic than measuring the air temperature, and attempting to discern patterns in it using computer models?

My poor expression above. 97% of papers show reality of global warming / climate change. 3% of papers written by climate change researchers do not support that view. In my mind, 97% most probably reflects reality. Majority of deniers (or, as they prefer, sceptics - an incorrect use of the word) can only point to the 3% of papers mentioned above. However, as a couple of other articles on this forum demonstrate, those arguing against the reality of climate change resort to myth, innuendo and character assasination.

Jardine, your comment

"This is the warmists' idea of proving their assertions which the temperature and CO2 data keep not proving"

shows a deep lack of knowledge and the science. To make such a statement without any reference to associated research, demonstrates myth making and promulgation that makes all of your arguments and logic valueless.

Tony
More assuming what is in issue, appeal to absent authority, and personal argument from a warmist, ho hum.

No it's not some kind of strange coincidence. It's all they've got.

Your repetition of it proves my point, not yours.

All
The warmists' endless repetition of these tactics, identified over 2,000 years ago as fallacies, and the fact the whole belief system is an artefect of government funding, is not some kind of strange coincidence either.

Jardine,
You confuse belief and fact. The former is more associated with the subconscious mind that provides the conscious mind with opinion based on part or all of a persons experiences, as recorded in the subconscious. In general, it is not possible to deconstruct such beliefs into a path another may follow. Peer group views and many other factors influence a persons set of beliefs.

Scientific research is based on rational thinking. Such thought processes are documented in research papers, allowing independent researchers to follow an authors arguments and propositions that lead to a papers conclusions. These independents can reanalyse the data and then accept or reject, with reasons, the papers conclusions.

Decades ago, such processes identified inkages between smoking and cancer.

The process you are using is identical to those used decades ago to delay formal acceptance of such a link (ref Marshall Institute). Thousands of people lost lives unnecessarily early because of such obfuscation.

You continue a not so fine tradition.

Pseudo-psychologist mind-reading, ho hum. Is that the best you can do?

This is the warmists' surrogate measure for actual temperature data.

Notice how Tony153 has posted nothing but fallacies in this whole thread? And these are the ones who want to talk down to everyone else about the meaning of science.

Tony153's gibe about loss of human life, coming from a warmist, is beneath contempt.

"Scientific research is based on rational thinking."

Only if it is. If it's based on fallacies, then obviously it's not scientific. What we're trying to establish, is the *non-fallacious* basis of your argument. Still looking.

For example, show us how you worked out that the alleged catastrophic anthropogenic global warming that policy can improve, is on balance worse rather than better. Show us how you took into account the ecological data and the subjective human values in the status quo versus your preferred policy counter-factual.

Go ahead. Show us what makes your belief rational. Replying to the effect that you believe it on the basis that someone else told you so, and you implicitly believe them because they're persons in authority, just proves you have no rational justification for your beliefs.

Tony, you do really do need to change your dinner party guest list.

Your current ones are way out of date, & feeding you a pile of old bulldust. Repeating it is making you look rather foolish.

Tony, what you need to understand is that it's not just you who's trotting out fallacy after fallacy after fallacy, it's the so-called scientists in the so-called science you're talking to.

For an example, look at this latest extract from a scientific paper cited by Anthony Watts. The authors say:
"A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/24/missing-heat-in-the-atlantic-it-doesnt-work-like-that/

So right there, they're saying that global warming is "on pause" and there's "a hiatus", in other words:
- the DATA are saying it's not happening, and
- the "scientists" are simply ignoring that, and just baldly ASSUMING that it is part of a larger pattern in which it IS happening of which they have NO KNOWLEDGE because it's in the future.

Now they're ADMITTING that it's not happening "in the air" i.e. it's NOT HAPPENING.

Okay? So that's not science, is it? Evidence of lack of global warming is not a "scientific" basis for asserting the existence of global warming, is it? Please admit that you understand that that is not science; otherwise you're just too stupid to participate in the discussion.

Now there's a whole empire of this kind of obviously biased, circular, ILLOGICAL rubbish. And this is what you and the warmists are calling "science".

It's a disgraceful state of affairs, and we owe a big debt of gratitude to the PRIVATE parties who are spending their time unpicking the knitting of these frauds.

Who would have thought that science would be so corrupted in our time, and that we would see this kind of blatant dishonesty being paid for throughout a vast international empire of these nasty conceited self-centred frauds, careless of the fact that the billions of dollars being diverted from productive activity, to the destructionism they advocate, has been and will be the cause of untold human deaths.

Well J.K.J:
If warmists are just a bunch of money grubbing fraudsters as you seem to claim?
Why don't we just call their bluff?
And just roll out cheaper than coal, carbon free thorium based power!
If they're coupled to very local micro grids, we could more than halve the cost of energy, and indeed, reinstate a very viable, energy dependent manufacturing industry!
Which as you know, is being quite literally killed before our very eyes, by high energy costs, and indeed, all the other charges that include an energy cost; water, transport and so on.
And improve that intended outcome, by finally addressing long overdue, real tax reform and quite massive simplification, which together, could make us the high tech capital of the world!?
And aid and abet that very outcome, by converting all our domiciles, to locally produced, waste converted energy?
Waste> methane> ceramic cell> endlessly sustainable energy on demand, and equally endless, free domestic hot water!
And for less than a quarter of what we shell out now!
And only ring in these same changes on sound economic grounds alone!
And if having done so, effectively destroy any and all warmest arguments!
Then can we, raise a convivial glass to plain old, old-fashioned common sense, rapidly becoming the most rare commodity on the endlessly bickering, [can't see the forest for the trees,] planet!
And another to, it's the economy stupid!
Rhrosty.

"Why don't we just call their bluff?
And just roll out cheaper than coal, carbon free thorium based power!"

1. Who's "we"?
2. Why don't you do it yourself? According to your theory, you'll do well at the same time as you do good.
3. If the reason is because of scarcity of resources, what makes you think that problem is going to be magically solved by giving it to government?
4. Why should other people be forced to sacrifice their values for yours?
5. Where do you guys keep getting the nutty idea that you have the goodness, knowledge or competence to forcibly re-design society?

JKJ,

"Notice how Tony153 has posted nothing but fallacies in this whole thread?"

"Only if it is. If it's based on fallacies, then obviously it's not scientific. What we're trying to establish, is the *non-fallacious* basis of your argument. Still looking."

Should have warned Tony153 that JKJ employs the same spiel for every debate he's involved in on OLO...the word "fallacy" always features prominently - as does the phrase "appeals to authority"...etc

Yup, they're all frauds (insert whomever it is that he's railing against)...they're all frauds - appealing to authority - and their argument is circular and illogical - they're dishonest - conceited ...yada, yada, yada ad nauseam.

.........

"For an example, look at this latest extract from a scientific paper cited by Anthony Watts."

A scientific paper?

From WUWT?

David Archibald

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/14/meet-david-archibald-the-fringe-scientist-predi/198886

"Fox News promoted predictions of "an impending ice age" from David Archibald, an oil and mining CEO who has said that he wants to be in DeSmogBlog's "Global Warming Disinformation Database." So far, Archibald has not won that dubious distinction -- but if he did, it would look something like this:
Credentials

B.S., Geology, Queensland University (1979)
(No other credentials yet claims to be a "climate scientist")"

"Archibald started working in coal and oil shale exploration in 1979, then went on to become a financial analyst and stockbroker before returning to oil companies in the 2000s. In 2003 he led an oil exploration company called Oilex, then joined a Canadian oil exploration company in 2006 at the same time he was CEO of mineral exploration company Westgold Resources. As of 2008, he was operating 8.6 million acres of oil exploration permits in Australia as of 2008. In a phone call with Media Matters, Archibald stated that he currently runs his own company in the oil industry."

Next.....

Notice how Poirot's post
a) makes no mention of anything relevant to the question whether we face catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve,
b) openly mocks the very concept of rationality,
c) evades answering the questions that prove her wrong, like my last question to Tony which he and Poirot are incapable of answering.

'Nuff said. She could be a poster-girl for the warmist religion and its new Liturgy of the Hours.

Don't bore us with more of your tedious irrelevance Poirot. Just explain how you took into account the ecological differences of the world in the status quo versus your policy counter-factual, and then human subjective valuations in them, and how you calculated the result.

Both the warmists and the skeptics keep proving the same point over and over again. The warmists have nothing but an amalgam of every kind of intellectual incoherence and moral arrogance, and all the skeptics refutations go unanswered by any rational argument.

JKJ,

"....Just explain how you took into account the ecological differences of the world in the status quo versus your policy counter-factual, and then human subjective valuations in them, and how you calculated the result."

Well there's a load of intellectual-style gobbledygook if I've ever seen it

"The warmists have nothing but an amalgam of every kind of intellectual incoherence and moral arrogance, and all the skeptics refutations go unanswered by any rational argument."

Er...you left out a reference to fallacy.

JKJ, does it ever occur to you that all you ever do is call people names and damn them with generic put downs.

That's all you do.

Full of sound and fury...signifying nothing.

Simple economics tells that if you spend less than you earn you will steadily increase your savings.
It is equally simple to work out a budget for the energy arriving at the surface of the earth and the energy leaving the earth. At the present energy is accumulating at the surface because we have restricted the outflow of energy by the addition of GHGs to the atmosphere. The only question is where that energy is accumulating, considering the ocean’s capacity to store heat is well over a 1000s times greater than the atmosphere, and the oceans are 70% of the earth’s surface it is not surprising we find that this is where it is accumulating.

It is does not matter how many scientists agree or disagree about climate change, it is clear that GHGs restrict the outflow of energy from surface and this has inevitable consequences. No amount Obfuscation will alter the physics that restricting the outflow of energy will cause temperatures to rise.

All
Remember that the warmist line of reasoning is:
1. Anthropogenic global warming => 2. Ecological change/damage => 3. Catastrophe for human welfare.

Notice how, without proving steps 2 and 3. all the warmists have is a non sequitur? They would go from positive temperature data to unproved ecological damage to unjustified normative conclusion = non sequitur.

Notice how, when Tony is asked to prove steps 2. and 3. he just goes quiet?

Tony?

Tony?

Don’t slink off mate. Just answer the question. How have you taken into account the ecological variables, and human valuations, on which your entire argument depends? For example, where I live, there’s a different micro-climate from 5 km down the road, and this significantly affects production possibilities. Show how you’ve taken that into account, and then show how you’ve done that for the whole of Eurasia, the Americas, etc.

What makes you think the rest of us can’t see how credulously illogical you’re being?

On the other hand, Poirot’s summary of the ecological and human valuation issues is that they are “gobbledegook”.

In other words, Poirot does not understand the orthodoxy she is defending even though her only contribution in AGW threads is to defend the orthodoxy and criticise non-conformists: which is the religious methodology, not the scientific.

And notice Poirot’s take on rational critique of the illogic of warmists methodology:
“all you ever do is call people names and damn them with generic put downs” .
In other words, there is no such thing as rational argumentation: there is only personal argument. That’s why, when you point out that her argument is ad hominem, she replies with more ad hominem: because she thinks that that’s all there is, and what everyone else is doing.

And notice Poirot’s belief that the demonstrated irrationality of the warmist line of argument does not affect the validity of the warmist belief system?

These are all religious methodology, not scientific.

State funding of science has no defence whatsoever against this irrationality and corruption, whereas with private funding at least you can refuse to pay if you don’t agree.

JKJ,

"In other words, there is no such thing as rational argumentation: there is only personal argument. That’s why, when you point out that her argument is ad hominem, she replies with more ad hominem: because she thinks that that’s all there is, and what everyone else is doing."

Coming from a poster whose entire repertoire is based on a combination of hackneyed and convoluted stock-response rhetoric liberally laced with ad hominem...that's quite a laugh.

You never discuss the actual science or link to any scientist with a clue.

The only thing you've got is your personalised and "well-rehearsed" spiel!

It's a rolling one-size-fits-all commentary which you pull out for whichever subject you happen to be debating.

I've seen it a million times...it's always the "same" argument.

Jardine – some food for your wandering mind:

1.Svante Arrhenius showed in 1896 that doubling atmospheric CO2 would raise worlds surface temperature by 4C. And Wikipedia is not a government construction – owned and populated by the people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

2.NOAA showing increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_growth

3. NASA CO2 concentration graph showing current CO2 levels to be much higher than it has been for at least 400,000 years (now at 400ppm, whereas it had not exceeded 295ppm for 800,000 years)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

4. Increasing mean temperatures for Australia between 1910 and 2013
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries

5. Satellite measurement show that less heat is leaving the earth than is incoming from the sun, resulting in the earth warming. Warming is about 1 watt per square metre. Equivalent to a 1,000 watt radiator on 24 hours a day in every 30x30metre area over the entire surface of our planet earth. No wonder the world continues to set higher record temperatures.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page7.php

6. “Global warming” just refers to the thin layer of atmosphere that touches the land and sea surface of our planet. It is still increasing, but not as fast as a few years ago. However, oceans continue to warm – overy 90% of heat coming from the sun goes into the oceans. 3627 Argo floats measure ocean temperatures
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

QUESTION: what data or facts do you have that counter the data from the technology referenced above – from satellites, to land recordings and deep ocean measuring instruments?

And what about Nobel prize winning Svante Arrhenius mentioned above? Are you going to pillory his achievements?

And another question for you – what would happen to our planet if there were no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Of course you do not know. Our home would be a giant snowball, or like the moon. Believe it or not, carbon dioxide is the prime blanket keeping the world warm. And for a century, we all have been adding layers to that blanket every second. Of course we are getting hotter.

Playing your word games may be fun: from my perspective it is tragic.

Re Don's original article:

"Research" and "Development" are separate activities.

The value of breakthrough research is often only realised in the "D" phase.

Much breakthrough research originates from a researcher saying "hey - that is interesting - I have no idea what is causing that disease to propagate, but perhaps it may be gut bacteria in faeces", and they go and investigate in that direction.

The ability to relatively easily change direction in science is the essence of good science - following your nose. This is not amenable to some spreadsheet formulae.

The value of the research is only realisable at the end of research. It can only be valued then.

As well, there must be pyramids of researchers who do not make substantial breakthroughs. However, such pyramids provide essential discourse between different groups and individual scientist upon which the breakthroughs sit atop of.

Such research cannot, in general, be done in private enterprise. In that environment,research must be amenable to spreadsheet analyses before it is begun. That is why large pharmaceuticals generally only research particular drugs because of predictable profits. If a disease affects relatively few, the drug companies will not devote any research dollars. That is why substantial medical research is still performed in government funded facilities.

Don is attempting to find a method for measuring science value before the results are achieved. But, in his article, he is groping for reasons to put limits on climate research.

The real question is: why?

Tony

You answer my prior questions first. If I can show that what you’re saying is fallacious, and you can’t disprove it, then trying to squirm out of it by reciting your premises won’t save you.

How have you taken into account
1. the ecological variables of the whole world, and
2. human subjective evaluations in:
a) the status quo you don’t want, and
b) your preferred policy counter-factual?

Your unthought-through assumptions about government funding of science are easily disproved.
3. By what rational criterion do you know whether the funding is too little, too much, or just the right amount?

“Such research cannot, in general, be done in private enterprise.”

Why not?

“In that environment, research must be amenable to spreadsheet analyses before it is begun.”

You are demonstrating a complete failure to understand what you’re talking about. It’s not “spreadsheet analysis” that’s the limiting factor. The limiting factor is *losses*. If this were not the case, it could be funded *voluntarily*, which is what you’re arguing against, remember? Government doesn’t magically supply a benefit relative to costs, and that’s what you need to establish – however you define the ultimate welfare criterion. All government supplies which would not otherwise be available is the coercive means to raise the finance without the consent of the contributors.

“Don is attempting to find a method for measuring science value before the results are achieved. But, in his article, he is groping for reasons to put limits on climate research. The real question is: why?”

Because you don’t have any rational criterion for funding it or demonstrating it’s worth being funded, that’s why!

But if you do, what’re the answers to my questions above?

Show us by what rational criterion you know what the amount of funding should be, and whether the money would have been better spent on something else? Go ahead.

Poirot, thank you for proving that you're wrong.

Taking a broad view, I think it is very unfortunate that the potential of AGW has not been seen more clearly as a prime 'opportunity' to innovate in the very, very-long-term global interest.

Certainly 'Climate' is complex; and perhaps many resources have been misdirected, or potentially wasted, in attempts to isolate a magical formula by which to predict or preempt climate manifestations.
Time to bail, or to take a punt on the economic, environmental, human and biosphere potentials?

Don Aitkin addresses the question "How can we usefully make judgements about science?", but on economic or 'scientific' potentials, Don appears to favour the study of 'gravitational waves' as potentially more productive (or at least interesting) than the study (or consideration) of global 'climate'.
Such 'waves', 'string theory', and the 'tricky movement' of electrons may explain microchips, space-time, or 'The Law of Everything', but I'm not sure how they will address the elimination of poverty or disease or conflict, let alone the feeding of the seething masses in the next millennium.

Andrew Leigh in his separate article "Carbon price boosted Fair Go" identified some practical benefits arising from the carbon tax, and appears to favour an ETS. I do not support the latter - paying someone else to cover our butt; and I see the fault of the carbon tax scheme (and possibly the RET) being in not preventing emitters from simply passing the cost on to consumers.

In the broad, oil and gas are finite, land and fertilisers are finite, and biodiversity is arguably 'on the brink'.
Continuing growth will eventually require multi-layer, solar and optic-fibre-supported mass hydroponics, and probably nuclear power, and most certainly total 'recycling' of garbage and of all human, animal and agricultural waste.
When to act? When the last barrel of oil or megalitre of gas is harvested? Or, while the 'opportunity' is still within easy grasp?

Take a long view now, or bet the farm on 'distant' technological innovation whereby all can survive on 'thin air'?

“Taking a broad view, I think it is very unfortunate that the potential of AGW has not been seen more clearly as a prime 'opportunity' to innovate in the very, very-long-term global interest.”

It’s all a question of risk management.

Imagine you have a farm, and there’s a risk of flooding. The risk is small but a flood would be devastating. Suppose the insurance premium is 50 percent of everything you produce. The question is: is it worth it? Do you want to go without everything that money could buy, to protect against that particular risk, when there are lots of other risks to consider – including viability - and lots of other opportunities for welfare and satisfaction with the money?

That’s what the warmists’ never answer. They think that by pointing to a wodge of temperature statistics, they’ve proved their case.

Their argument would only make sense if there was only one risk in the whole world, and no scarcity of resources to combat it with, or if we could assume that the scarcity of resources could be magically solved by government. They don’t understand that, even if government does supply the resources, and enact the policies they want, it still won’t solve the problem. It won't mean that all relevant human satisfactions are maximised or optimised by replacing voluntary action with coerced; which is all their argument amounts to.

The least of their problem is in the climatology (although they ignore the partisan and dishonest manipulations of the data they cite).

They don’t seem to understand that they are involved in assertions that pre-suppose compliance with the requirements of logical thought, that they can’t just add a quantity on one side of the equation without accounting for it on the other. They don’t understand that they are asserting the more economical way to do things, and what human beings value; while having no rational basis for their assertions. Emotive basis, yes. Arbitrary, yes. Rational, no.

All state funding of science is liable to the same problem for the same reasons: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Tony153

Can you see that, even if I conceded all the points you have made - which I don't because you ignore all the major issues - you still would not have established your argument or refuted mine, because you wouldn’t have established that the results of AGW would be worse rather than better, nor that any policy would be worth the downside?

On the other hand, I have established my argument and refuted yours - the climatology is necessary but not sufficient - and you have nothing to answer but just go quiet.

So? Do you concede and admit that you and all warmists are illogical and wrong; or not?

To eliminate the possibility of intellectual dishonesty on your part, would you please explicitly answer these questions:

How have you taken into account:
1. the ecological variables of the whole world, and
2. human subjective evaluations in:
a) the status quo you don’t want, and
b) your preferred policy counter-factual?
Show your calculations.

3. By what rational criterion do you know whether the funding is too little, too much, or just the right amount?

(Notice btw I'm actively trying to falsify my argument - giving you the ammo to shoot me down - whereas yours is unfalsifiable, circular, and you're trying only to confirm it? = religious methodology)

I say you can’t prove yours or disprove mine, but if you can, go ahead: show us that your and all warmists’ belief system is not morally and intellectually bankrupt as I have just proved it is.

No assuming you’re right, no personal argument, no appeal to absent authority, thanks. Please just answer the questions or admit you can't.

I'd urge Tony153 to consider the "10 signs of intellectual honesty"
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/ Most of his comments (and Agronomist's) are a Fail against most of the criteria.

I'd also urge him to consider the 10 signs of intellectual dishonesty.