24 thoughts on “Ehrlich Style!

  1. Yes, by all means thunder against those ‘elite betters’. I’m still chuckling over how you present yourself as wiser at understanding the outcome of Brexit than those silly experts, including how you incorrectly assert the experts have no experience running actual business.

    You know – unlike for example, the Japanese companies which operate car plants in the north of England. Or the bankers. Or the London School of Economics experts who regularly provide their analytic services for specific businesses when those businesses are contemplating loans and expansions.

    But you know better than those ‘experts’ with real world experience supplemented with academic experience……….and yet you don’t understand the most basic factors involved in Brexit, and have never had any real world experience running any corporation or significant business either.

    That propaganda crap deriding experts plays well to the ignorant who resent that the 21st century requires more education to participate significantly in the economy.

    But I notice that when the conservatives in Congress pledged in 2014 to make job creation their first priority, it came a very distant placing to Clinton Benghazi witch hunts. That’s because Conservative economics only serves to redistribute wealth to the wealthy, not to create jobs or benefit the middle class or the working classes.

    You’re a fool pandering to fools here with ridiculous propaganda, nothing of substance, and nothing that holds up to rational analysis.

  2. You’re a fool pandering to fools here with ridiculous propaganda, nothing of substance, and nothing that holds up to rational analysis.

    My rational analysis and survey of a map states Pinal county does not border on Mexico, contradicting your absolute authoritative statement to otherwise. A statement you presented as fact and based your expert opinion on. Please address.

  3. It was never about science. It was never about mother Gaia. It was never about people. Well, ok, it was about people. Elitist progressives used AGW as an abstract construct to hijack the global economy and enslave most of the people. Say, when will UN become a parking lot? Can’t wait.

  4. So I take it that worshiping experts is how Dog Gone got to be the way she is today.

    A cautionary tale.

  5. I suppose Michael Gove had people like Hansen in mind when he said:
    “People in this country have had enough of experts from organizations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.”

  6. The link you provide is contrary to the conclusions of every Academy of Science of any valid reputation. Even the oil industry admits that fossil fuels are responsible, that they are becoming toxic assets, and that at the same time they were paying their sock puppets to lie about it, they knew damn well that global warming was taking place.

    That is why a long list of Attorneys General are suing those oil companies, for deliberately misrepresenting to investors what they knew and when they knew it about global warming — including our AG Lori Swanson. As with the tobacco company suits, where the tobacco companies similarly lied and paid others to lie while pretending it was science, these AGs have an excellent chance of prevailing.

    And no, Mitch, science is also about proving hypotheses, not just disproving them.

    Major business sectors, like the insurance industry, have taken action to address climate change events which are increasing. Anthropogenic global warming is real, and it is dangerous, and pretending the science is refuted only demonstrates that your science background is not only weaker than those in the Academies of Science, but weaker than a 5th graders.

    Much like your knowledge of economics.

  7. DG,

    Question for you, and please answer it or I’ll have to return to greying out your comments:

    Were Hansen’s predictions wrong, or were they not

    Were Paul Erhlich’s “expert” predictions wrong, or were they not?

    Please answer both of those questions, or I’ll start graying you out for metablogging in my comment section again.

  8. Just plain angry, I don’t recall making the claim about Pima or Pinal counties that you reference.

    I know very well that Pinal county is near the border but not on it, and that Pima county is directly to the south of Pinal, and does border Mexico.

    Troy, I don’t worship experts, but I do recognize that they become experts by performing to a high standard. You lot like to pretend otherwise, but when I look at the record of successful analysis of entities like the London School of Economics various component centers, or Moody’s Analytics, which work in the real world and have to be correct in their assessments in order to have their well earned prestige – or further clients — it is clear that you are selectively dishonest to pretend they don’t know what they are doing.

    They know more than you do, and make more successful conclusions about events in their area of expertise than you do. Denying it only makes you look more foolish and ignorant.

  9. Somehow DG’s screeds remind me of the old proverb, “If you can’t blind them with brilliance…..”

  10. During a briefing by academics at the London School of Economics on the turmoil on the international markets the Queen asked: “Why did nobody notice it?”
    Professor Luis Garicano, director of research at the London School of Economics’ management department, had explained the origins and effects of the credit crisis when she opened the £71 million New Academic Building.
    The Queen, who studiously avoids controversy and never gives away her opinions, then described the turbulence on the markets as “awful”.
    Prof Garicano said: “She was asking me if these things were so large how come everyone missed it.” He told the Queen: “At every stage, someone was relying on somebody else and everyone thought they were doing the right thing.”


  11. So your “evidence” against your condescending screed was…your opinion about a lawsuit’s chances?

    As logical as ever.

    Mitch, science is also about proving hypotheses, not just disproving them.

    A hypothesis has to be falseable, though. Without a “this is how we can DISprove the hypothesis”, the scientific method can’t really do anything about it.

    Major business sectors, like the insurance industry, have taken action to address climate change …

    Let’s take a break from the sermon to ask a simple question: let’s say AGW is real. OK – so why is “handing the keys to the world economy over to a bunch of bureaucrats” the answer?

    Please answer that.

    Much like your knowledge of economics.

    DG, your commentary on this blog has been pretty roundly debunked by people who actually DO know things over the years. You have not earned the right to condescend.

  12. Dog Gone wrote:

    “Troy, I don’t worship experts, but I do recognize that they become experts by performing to a high standard. You lot like to pretend otherwise …” blah blah blah.

    I won’t answer for anyone else, but in my experience many persons considered experts in their fields perform “to a high standard”, and many do not. Regardless, both groups are made up of human beings who lack magical powers and perfect future knowledge, even concerning things well within their field.

    From what you’ve said recently (and in the past), you assume they do have these powers, especially when it is convenient. And it’s worse than that. We’re not even talking expert persons here, we’re talking about institutions that may contain experts. These institutions can emit an article, or paper, or message, and you treat it like the revealed truth.

    That’s worship.

  13. My take on experts is that real experts prove it with data. As Deming said, “In God we Trust, all others must provide data.”

  14. BB, but for braindead libturds like DG doctored and fake data is still data. There is a word data in it, you see. And data is data. See the logic?

  15. DG, a long time ago, you were foaming at the mouth as you usually are, about a certain sheriff in Pinal county and how they were so wrong because of a fact Pinal county was on the border with Mexico and you were right – based on factcheckTM of course. The factTM Pinal county was on the border PROVED without a reasonable doubt your point of view. But for one problem. Pinal county is not on the border. So we are all still waiting for that “I am sorry, I was wrong” line from you. But you are never wrong. That would destroy your infallibility and self-righteousness. Being DG is never having to say you are “sorry”.

    PS. Pima county had nothing to do with the original story.

  16. JPA: yes, she’ll always SAY there’s data there, but the proof is in the pudding…

  17. DG-“Many business sectors, such as the insurance industry, have taken action to address climate change.” Gee, imagine that. An industry that functions by paying, basically, for disasters wants to buddy-up with the climate change movement that “predicts” a new disaster almost every day. And you think that’s about science? How naïve. And speaking of predictions, can you name one negative climate event that’s happened that can be proven to have been caused solely not just by CO2, but by man’s addit

  18. Sorry-“but by man’s additional CO2 that’s been added to the atmosphere? I didn’t think so

  19. Apparently, Doggy breath, you missed the articles about decreased sunspots leading to a little ice age by 2020-2030, also known as a Maunder Minimum. The last time this happened, was in 1645 and lasted until 1700. The winters were so cold that the Thames River in London froze solid. Of course, since these predictions are being made by some of the same blowhards that predicted we would be dead by now, they can’t possibly be accurate, huh Dog? Please get a life or get a real education instead of the one that made you such a moron.

  20. You know, every time I read a post stained with DG comments, I read the same (now tired old) threat of censoring in some way those comments. I’ll admit to not being a daily visitor, but do these these threats ever amount to anything? And does DG ever answer any questions?

  21. JDM,

    The “threat” is relatively new – I’ve been talking about it for a few months.

    A couple of weeks ago I started graying out her comments and adding a note saying I would keep doing that until DG started discussing, rather than dumping and running. She did actually start discussing, briefly; if that hasn’t sunk in, I’ll go back to it.

    I’m loathe to ban DG, partly because that’s what leftybloggers do, and partly because, let’s be honest, the comments are great low entertainment.

  22. Fair enough, Mitch. Thanks for the explanation and good luck dealing with DG, low entertainment or not 😉

  23. I keep wanting to axe these “experts” just ONE piece of information that will prove their theories correct. That is, “What, exactly, was the average global temperature on July 7, 2116?” If they cannot answer that, then it’s all just speculation.

    Oh, and if the US stopped producing CO2 tomorrow, we would change the atmosphere by roughly 2 parts per million, when these “Warmists” have been concerned about it rising to 800 PPM.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.