New Video : “Nobel Prize In Economic Ignorance”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to New Video : “Nobel Prize In Economic Ignorance”

  1. Norilsk says:

    Another ace in the hole!

  2. Norilsk says:

    I don’t understand what all they’re talking about as they refute IPCC modelling except for they don’t use radiative transfer modelling. Anybody care to interpret the errors exposed?

  3. Traveler says:

    So then, by the prevailing climate logic, increasing corn yields make CO2 go up.
    We should not plant any more corn to save the planet.

    Except for popcorn… I mean that can’t kill us, can it?

    Maybe meat-based popcorn. Yeah, that will work.

  4. Joel says:

    I’m not sure how you got that drawing of me at 0:41, but…I guess I’m ok with you using it. Another great video!!

  5. Anon says:

    Hi Tony,

    Have you seen this? It looks rather ominous:

    YouTube To Delete All Accounts That Aren’t “Commercially Viable” Starting Dec. 10th


    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what YouTube is planning to do once this policy change comes into full effect.

    I don’t know that it is true? Just a heads-up / FYI.

  6. Rick Phillips says:

    I believe Nordhaus simply uses IPCC results in his models. While it appears that Nordhaus supported a carbon tax on the basis that if done right; would result in a calculated net present value benefit of about $3 trillion. He has however, also come up with results that suggest climate change abatement costs greatly exceed claimed potential for damages from climate change. For example, he found that Al Gore’s proposals would for aggressive limits on CO2 would hurt economic output so much that net abatement COSTs over doing nothing about climate change was on the order of $21 trillion. Similarly, attempts to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees C would still result in abatement costs that exceeded the claimed damages of climate change by about $14 trillion. So unless unlikely but catastrophic climate events occurred Nordhaus findings suggest that it was better to mitigate damages rather than attempt to reduce CO2. So money spent on attempting to stop CO2 based climate change was better spent elsewhere. Nordhaus findings are worth reviewing!

  7. David Brawner says:

    Hi Tony:

    At around 1 minute in this video you observe corn yields have increased since 1940. This is true of other crops as well. You then suggest this is linked to carbon emissions.

    It is true that CO2 is used as a fertilizer- and many greenhouses actually pump in CO2 to enhance plant growth. It is not correct to imply that the increase in crop yields is due to CO2 emissions. They would be influenced instead by the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This has been measured and you can see it has only increased at most by about 30-40% since 1940.

    This would not be enough to explain the increase in crop yields. The real reason crop yields have increased so much since the 1940s is the use of modern plant breeding techniques and biotechnology. Companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont, Dow and Bayer Crop Science have collectively spent billions of dollars developing seeds for higher yielding crops. Corn yields typically increase about 2-3% per year due to this effort. This really began in earnest in the 1940s when hybrid corn was introduced on a large scale and scientific methods were introduced to agriculture. Collectively this is known as the “green revolution” and it has enabled the ability for several billion people to live on Earth without famine. You can see a high level summary here:

Leave a Reply to Rick Phillips Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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