Monday, November 16, 2009

Prominent Russian Scientist: 'We should fear a deep temperature drop -- not catastrophic global warming'

Don't worry folks, about the forthcoming global cooling. I'm sure the ecomentalists will blame it on global warming.

Plus, to add to the taxes on using carbon fuels, there will be further taxes on NOT using carbon fuels, to offset the global cooling caused by the global warming ... the climate change ... the ... errr ... something evil caused by capitalists.

Confused? So is every brain-dead religoid marxoid anti-scientific state-worshipping Gaia-worshipping environmentalist, in the world. But don't worry. None of them have any brains, just PhDs in politics and sociology, or great big chips on both shoulders because daddy didn't love them enough (if mummy bothered telling them who daddy was). Boo hoo.

Why have one tax where two taxes will do?

Homework essay: Define scientific falsifiability (and its applicability to the 'global warming' debate or lack thereof)

2 comments:

Gekko said...

"Falsifiability (or refutability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment"

Interestingly, I've heard the same claim levelled against Austrian economics. The issue revolves around the expression of preferences. Critics say that since Austrian econ claims that preferences are only ever revealed by action, it is not falsifiable. There is no outcome (even inaction) that can disprove the theory and therefore it is, like global warming, of no predictive value scientifically.

Refutations are left as an exercise for the reader.

Jack Maturin said...

Well, that's because, as with mathematics, Austrian economics is an 'a priori' science. I don't need to prove to you that 2+2=4 by adding an endless sequence of sand grains from a beach together, until eventually I add two grains to another two grains, to equal five grains, thereby disproving the assertion 2+2=4.

You accept the assertion 2+2=4 on its logical 'a priori' basis, without the need for further demonstrable proof.

The descent of economics into logical positivism (as physics is to mathematics) is, according the Austrians, a mistake.

You accept Austrian axioms as 'a priori' statements, or you do not. They do not need to be proved via experiment.

If you do not accept them, and demand proof (e.g. that a minimum wage will increase unemployment) then you are on the road to Milton Friedmanism and the Chicago School.

Strangely enough, of course, Austrianism does make predictions and usually gets things right, in the long run.

Whereas logical positivists who demand proof for everything generally get everything wrong, in both the short and the long run.

Discuss.

Anyhow, that's all a bit heavy after a nice afternoon on the beach. I do know that I now prefer Becks beer to Heineken beer, and that I will never touch Fosters beer again, but I cannot 'prove' the assertion that Becks is better than Fosters in any 'Objective' sense.

I'll just be damned if I ever let another drop of this poison pass my lips again.