CEPR - Center for Economic and Policy Research


En Español

Em Português

Other Languages

Home Publications Blogs Beat the Press AP: "Many Scientists Believe [carbon emissions] Cause Global Warming"

AP: "Many Scientists Believe [carbon emissions] Cause Global Warming"

Thursday, 07 October 2010 07:29
That's what AP told readers today. Tomorrow we will no doubt find that many scientists believe that the earth is round and that humans evolved from more primitive primates. Stay tuned.
Comments (18)Add Comment
written by izzatzo, October 07, 2010 9:19
It's easy to identify these scientists for what they are. Keynesian Socialists. They believe in CO2 bubbles and all matter of mythical multiplier effects driven by feedback effects, like how the greenhouse effect feeds on itself to melt glaciers which increases the greenhouse effect more and forces the earth into a Liquidity Heat Trap.

They're pushing an Austerity Plan to reduce CO2 that will kill the economy. The cooling deficit is not out of control. Spending and borrowing of more cooling reserves to warm things up with CO2 is critical to maintain full employment of all resources and avoid a Great Recession of land mass as ocean levels rise.
written by D, October 07, 2010 9:21
I really never get tired of Dean's brand of dry econosnark. Outstanding.
written by Evan Harper, October 07, 2010 10:02
Okay, sorry to be pedantic, but biologists today don't generally speak of "more primitive" evolutionary ancestors, as it smacks of teleology. The modern synthesis describes evolution as a non-directed process within which there no basis to identify "primitive" or "more highly evolved" types.
written by AndrewS, October 07, 2010 10:35
Evan - There is no basis to identify "primitive" or "more highly evolved" types? Are you kidding?

Check out the nearest Tea Party rally.
The economy is pretty much dead
written by jbmoore, October 07, 2010 10:50
How can the first commentator frame the debate in such a way? Science is about what is happening now. Science is about real processes based on facts. It's not about a theory based on pure assumption and mathematics without empirical data to back it up, but a theory that has withstood all tests and attempts to falsify it. If the first commentator wishes to refute a theory, he can climb a tall building and step off of it. Since gravity is nothing more than a scientific theory, his beliefs against this theory should protect him from the reasonable prediction that he's going to accelerate to a certain velocity determined by the height of the building, and stop suddenly upon reaching the ground. Hopefully, he'll make it a really tall building to spare us all from his delusional rantings. Unlike 90-95% of economists, Mr. Baker understands the scientific method. Too bad his critics don't.
written by fuller schmidt, October 07, 2010 10:58
Is satire getting easier, izzatzo? Well done. And I'm pretty sure the term "primative" is still used and understood in Biology.
Global warming vs. "The Free Market"
written by Arista, October 07, 2010 10:58
Global warming represents a colossal failure of "The Free Market," i.e., the faith for some and Big Lie of others that a national, even international, economy can be self-regulating and must not be "fettered" by government, democratic or otherwise--that this Market is in fact the essence of democracy (as if one-dollar/one-"vote" were somehow the equal of or better than one-person/one-vote). Worse for Free Marketeers, warming represents a huge obstacle to the endless growth that has enabled the ongoing avoidance of the issue of fair distribution. No wonder nonsense like that in the AP article is repeated and repeated and ... .
written by Margaret Hulahoop, October 07, 2010 11:06
Would it be possible for us to do away with the "Not to be pedantic" and then immediately being pedantic?
CO2 Hoax, Low-rated comment [Show]
Financial Advisor gets Life Sentence
written by Brighton, October 07, 2010 12:59
Finally - a famous member of the financial sector was sent to prison for life. http://feedproxy.google.com/~r...tence.html
Freedom to Fart - Stop the Fart Tax
written by izzatzo, October 07, 2010 1:07
The next Teabagger rally, "Farting is Carbon Neutral and Not Primitive Except for Illegals", will be held at the Mexican Methane Museum, just down the road from the usual place, the Creationist Museum. Christine O'Donnell, keynote speaker, will explain why farting in public is not a cardinal sin of the flesh but capping and trading of farts is.
written by NeilS, October 07, 2010 1:42
Speaking as a climate scientist, I don't think that the causes of recent climate change are as certain as evolution or the shape of the Earth. Remember that those have been accepted (by most) for at least a century.

As to CO2 Hoax's comments, a little knowledge is dangerous. Learn more.
written by vorpal, October 07, 2010 2:14
Evan Harper was right. See, we could all stand to learn a little more about science!
written by vorpal, October 07, 2010 2:15
Although, AndrewS does make a compelling counter-argument.
written by vorpal, October 07, 2010 2:18
BTW, I got a laugh out of this one. Thanks Dean!
Isn't satire a penknife used to reveal truth, not hide it?
written by jbmoore, October 07, 2010 9:58
I usually like izzatzo's satire. But, when the satire is almost indistinguishable from the arguments one hears being made against Science, it's time to point it out. Scientists are human. They make mistakes. But Science usually self-corrects within 20 years at the outside, and there's intense debate in the intervening years. To call scientists economists is a terrible insult and poor satire. Perhaps I am the fool for not recognizing the wit this time, but the satire above is using the same knife Science's critics use to undermine its message. Satire is an art used to reveal truth and men's folly, not as a weapon to keep us ignorant and foolish. Each of us is ignorant and foolish enough as it is. We all need more wisdom and light in our lives.
written by Erik, October 09, 2010 6:48
what is this world coming to.. Orwell may have been the Ultimate Visionary.
written by Arista, October 09, 2010 5:24
A commenter claims that the human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is merely 0.002% and, therefore, unimportant. Some form of this assertion is frequently repeated, not necessarily with the same numbers.

A fatal dose of cyanide for a human can be as low as 1.5 mg/kg of body weight (Source: Wikipedia)

Obviously the smallness of a percentage per se says nothing about the danger of the quantity involved.

In a world of rational public debate, this fact should at least give pause before reuse of the "it's too small to matter" claim. Since I can't be the first to make the point, perhaps we're not engaged in reasonable dialogue.

Write comment

(Only one link allowed per comment)

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comments.


Support this blog, donate
Combined Federal Campaign #79613

About Beat the Press

Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive. Read more about Dean.