Blood Pressure Therapy...

[GRG55]

This will either calm you down a bit or get you riled, depending on which side of the various subject debates you happen to be on.

From Bob Hoye, economic historian and writer from Vancouver, BC.
Apologies if someone else has already posted this elsewhere on another thread. It's tough keeping up with all of you now

[c1ue]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

Yep, this'll get the global warming nuts into a tizzie.

My thoughts reflect those discussed in this paper...

[GRG55]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

Yep, this'll get the global warming nuts into a tizzie...

"Hard core" peak oiler's too...

[Guest]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

GRG55 -

Bob Hoye quotes:

<< The other physical aspect of carbon is that there has been no correlation between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the long history of climate change. Nada. >>

[ This is an un-substantiated assertion ]

<< Convictions about man-made global warming will soon be ranked with convictions about astrology and alchemy. >>

[ This is another fairly audacious un-substantiated assertion ]

<< Another blunder is a failure in logic, which is the primitive syllogism that insists that because two things occur at the same time they are causally related. The old “roosters and sunrise” story. This time around it is too many people living the modern life. >>

Here Hoye presents an assertion ( presented as unassailable logic ) that any link between warming and CO2 is a mere syllogism - wishing us to accept as ascertained fact that scientific debates currently ongoing regarding global warming are thoroughly specious.

The problem is - those current debates in fact quite clearly do provide data at least anecdotally linking C02 to warming - viz. the chart below, which could be suitable even for 11th graders tasked with discerning a stark visual pattern repetition. Mr. Hoye couches his "syllogism by specious analogy" as some form of unassailable logic, while actually skirting perilously close to his own poor methodology here, as his remark is merely an assertion in it's own right.
_______________

I see that the exhaustive back and forth we engaged in on this topic on that past climate thread has left all issues squarely unanswered in your view, along with an itch you are yearning to scratch at this point. ( blood pressure - why ? ) ... Why is my own blood pressure remarkably subdued on this topic?

I was under the impression as you and I left off on this discussion, that you were adopting a more agnostic viewpoint? If so Mr. Hoye's elegantly derisive tone in the above article might be inappropriate to a genuinely inquiring and agnostic review of the issue?

Mr. Hoye has evidently arrived at his own clear and immutable conclusion as to the merit of the topic, which is a good deal more assurance than I have on the issue.

Bob Hoye is a very elegant and astute writer, and I have been following his articles regarding the credit and commodity markets for years. He inspires a lot of trust and respect. - he is in fact on my very short list of analysts to follow closely., and he has a rare and admirable familiarity with a lot of market history spanning centuries, which alone makes his commentary very special.

Having said that, it's also important to note the PDF article you refer to is strictly a 'fluff piece', in that practically all it's observations which venture into the present era as opposed to reminiscing about Malthusian delusions and popular madness of crowds of past epochs, are an (admittedly tart and quite entertaining) series of mere assertions, rather than any expositions of fact which might substantiate his view wherein the "warming > CO2 link" might be debunked. And to be quite factual, one of his assertions borders on the mendacious, which is really a bit naughty of him - it's this one:

<< The other physical aspect of carbon is that there has been no correlation between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the long history of climate change. Nada. >>

THERE IS NO VISIBLE CORRELATION OF CO2 WITH TEMPERATURE.png

Perhaps he should have restrained himself to stating there was still much discussion as to the definitive proof - rather than asserting starkly that no data existed, or had been put forward at least demonstrating a clear potential for correlation?

To make this claim while standing before a wall-sized chart of the graphic shown above would certainly engender some very lively discussion in a room full of climate scientists, no? I mean, a striking visual correlation appears to the eye, does it not (or am I hallucinating here)?

It appears there is a distinctly visible correlation between CO2 and Temperature on this and similar charts, which was the subject of an exhaustive discussion we all had about it a short while ago on these pages. Of course one can resort to disclaiming the chart's data has any validity, but at that point one is merely wrangling the issue rhetorically, if one declines to present alternate charts or indeed any other visual data demonstrating the contrary.

A coherent repudiation of this chart's visually correlated CO2 - Temp information, to be a convincing rebuttal, would need to provide at least some alternate data chart showing the above chart's data was massively random and completely irrelevant in it's visually correlative inferences.

To deny seeing that correlation on this chart would be merely silly. It's quite clearly at least visually apparent, no? It may be misleading, but it is certainly apparent to the eye?

This is not a question of stupid environmentalists making tall claims - it's a question of whether we agreed on something as simple and incontrovertible as the visual difference between a square and a circle drawn on paper. That's practically the extent of the complexity of visual recognition required to acknowledge the simple visual correlation evident in this chart.

I don't know if you bought into Mr. Hoye's ridicule of this topic. In case you did: If you find yourself completing back somersaults to avoid acknowledging the striking visual correlation, or reaching around for reasons why this chart's data 'must' be false or wildly inaccurate other than resorting to generalities like 'all chart data is highly speculative', then you are showing symptoms of being 'invested' in a thesis which this chart awkwardly intrudes upon to the contrary.

In that case, there would be little use in discussing it further in detail as expressions of position become essentially equivalent to expressions of personal emotion.

The chart 'proves' nothing, but that's not the point.

The point is whether the chart engenders enough recognition of a visual correlaton to produce a genuine curiosity or desire to scrupulously remain an agnostic rather than indulge the cherished impulse to be a 'global warming debunker' as Mr. Hoye seems to have chosen to do ..

Mr. Hoye's breezy and elegant editorial piece floats lightly over such questions while sprinkling his inimitable brand of elegant derision on the thesis, but as long as he refuses to step in more substantially with some frank assessment of the potential significance of such a chart's startlingly clear visual correlation, while at the same time confining himself to breezy assertions that " there is no correlation between carbon and climate - NADA " , the article posted remains a 'fluff piece'.

I repeat, I have no firm conviction on this topic. What I do have a clear idea about however, is that anyone gazing at this chart who remained resolutely incurious as to the strikingly evident visual correlation of CO2 and Temperature which the chart displays, has more of an 'agenda' on this issue than I do. If you are genuinely agnostic, this chart's striking correlation of the two will have you frankly acknowledging that Bob Hoye's assertion above, is at very least one of Mr. Hoye's less authoritative statements.

[sadsack]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

GRG55 -

Bob Hoye quotes:

<< The other physical aspect of carbon is that there has been no correlation between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the long history of climate change. Nada. >>

[ This is an un-substantiated assertion ]

I don't know if Hoye is committing a verbal blunder or is hard at work in the spin shed.

A far more plausible claim can be made for the statement:

While it appears that substantial correlation exists between the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and the long history of climate change, this correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. E.g., higher temperatures could be driving increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, rather than vice versa.

Correlation, by definition, quantifies the strength of the association between variables/phenomena. It absolutely cannot indicate which one caused the other.

Search "Flying Spaghetti Monster" for a hilarious proof that global warming is caused by the dramatic drop in the number of pirates over the last 150 years . . .

[WDCRob]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

Given the choice between accepting the consensus of roughly 98% of the worlds climate scientists, or accepting the skepticism of the remaining 2% - many of whom either have an axe to grind or have money in their pocket courtesy of the businesses that stand to profit from continued inaction - well, I find that an easy choice to make.

[GRG55]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

GRG55 -

...I was under the impression as you and I left off on this discussion, that you were adopting a more agnostic viewpoint? If so Mr. Hoye's elegantly derisive tone in the above article might be inappropriate to a genuinely inquiring and agnostic review of the issue?...

1. Just because I post something does not necessarily mean I agree with every aspect, or any of it.
2. On the contrary, I completely disagree that what I posted is "inappropriate to a genuinely inquiring and agnostic review of the issue". However nobody should feel compelled to agree with, or even read, anything I might post...that's not my objective.

Those who have focussed on only the climate change aspect of Hoye's commentary have overlooked his main point...in economic history we have many times before come to popular consensus about some pending dramatic and catastrophic change to the then current human circumstance, that subsequently proved to be based on false or incomplete premise.

The climate change and peak oil debates are over only for those who have already made up their minds.

The rest of us - apparently in the minority - and witnessing such a strong consensus, are wary of, and watchful for, the potential false or incomplete premise that we don't see today that may prove these latest doomsday scenarios incorrect.

The most interesting part of Hoye's commentary for me was the discussion about food supply in India. I lived and went to school in New Delhi for a couple of years in the mid-1960's, and travelled through the NW region, the most productive agricultural area of the country. An area that depended on the annual monsoon rains, without which the crops failed and the inevitable national famine would set in. At that time India was a major buyer of wheat from the USA and Canada. As rural electrification advanced through the NW of the country the ability to grow irrigated crops also advanced. Despite its own substantial population growth, India became a net exporter of wheat, competing with the rather heavily subsidized US and Canadian grain farmers on world markets.

[FRED]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

1. Just because I post something does not necessarily mean I agree with every aspect, or any of it.
2. On the contrary, I completely disagree that what I posted is "inappropriate to a genuinely inquiring and agnostic review of the issue". However nobody should feel compelled to agree with, or even read, anything I might post...that's not my objective.

Those who have focussed on only the climate change aspect of Hoye's commentary have overlooked his main point...in economic history we have many times before come to popular consensus about some pending dramatic and catastrophic change to the then current human circumstance, that subsequently proved to be based on false or incomplete premise.

The climate change and peak oil debates are over only for those who have already made up their minds.

The rest of us - apparently in the minority - and witnessing such a strong consensus, are wary of, and watchful for, the potential false or incomplete premise that we don't see today that may prove these latest doomsday scenarios incorrect.

The most interesting part of Hoye's commentary for me was the discussion about food supply in India. I lived and went to school in New Delhi for a couple of years in the mid-1960's, and travelled through the NW region, the most productive agricultural area of the country. An area that depended on the annual monsoon rains, without which the crops failed and the inevitable national famine would set in. At that time India was a major buyer of wheat from the USA and Canada. As rural electrification advanced through the NW of the country the ability to grow irrigated crops also advanced. Despite its own substantial population growth, India became a net exporter of wheat, competing with the rather heavily subsidized US and Canadian grain farmers on world markets.

GRG55 is making a key point here so I'm going to emphasize it. iTulip is about taking a position but also taking in contrary views to prevent the kind of opinion ossification that we see happening on many boards and on many sites. Just because we are listening to someone doesn't mean we agree with him or her. For example, we interview Michael Hudson, an economist with leftist ideas about how to fix the economy. Does that mean iTulip is socialist? Heck, no. It means we think great minds have important ideas to contribute to our understanding of how the economic and markets work. Does GRG55 agree with everything Bob Hoye writes? Can't assume that. Maybe he's challenging our beliefs about global warming. Our position is moving more toward the global warming camp, by the way, not only due to the evidence but because whether or not human activity can be proven to be warming the earth, continuing to use up non-renewable resources at current rates is quite simply wrong–wrong for future generations.

We're writing our mission statement for the year. So far it goes like this:

1) Listen - Keep taking in a wide range of contradictory views from experts
2) War on anti-intellectualism, dogma, and ideology - Take a stand against the Balkinization of opinion that the Internet is producing
3) Keep is short, keep it simple - Enough said
4) Organize - Make it easier for our members to find content

Be prepared to be challenged by iTulip and your fellow community members.

Oh, and we don't do conspiracy theories.

[Guest]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

Yes, well ... the title of this thread, in conjunction with Mr. Hoye's string of rather partisan assertions on the topic, seemed to suggest a somewhat less than 'agnostic' set of conclusions to the readership?

[DemonD]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

all of the arguments that i have seen that are in opposition to global warming theory are short on science and long on wordsmithing and manipulation of whatever numbers they can find. this is just more of that same droning, imo.

[c1ue]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

DD,

Hopefully without restarting the warming wars - but just listen to what Hoye notes: that the climate models predicting doom and gloom still are not able to recreate several past major climate changes:

This would include the current interglacial that began some 12,000 years ago, as well as the medieval warming within which temps until around 1300 were as warm as recent.

This is my major complaint about the global warming 'consensus'.

Again, I do not say there is no global warming, however, I require more than a scientific popularity contest to agree.

Figures like 98% agreement on global warming are completely meaningless to me - 98% of economists believed there would be no recession in 2007 as late as June 2007.

Only time will tell if the consensus was correct.

[GRG55]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

all of the arguments that i have seen that are in opposition to global warming theory are short on science and long on wordsmithing and manipulation of whatever numbers they can find. this is just more of that same droning, imo.

Quite understandable when apparently only "2%" of climatologists are on that side of the debate.

Must a tough gig when you're outnumbered 49 to 1...

[GRG55]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

Yes, well ... the title of this thread, in conjunction with Mr. Hoye's string of rather partisan assertions on the topic, seemed to suggest a somewhat less than 'agnostic' set of conclusions to the readership?

Sorry you took the title seriously Lukester. If you look back on the titles of most of the threads that I started you will, hopefully, note that I try to use them to inject a bit of humour, poke fun at entrenched positions (some of which I hold) or generate some food for thought. None of them should be taken seriously...

[Guest]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

GRG55 -

Apologies should be offered by me rather, as I've committed the cardinal sin - never, ever take anything (especially oneself!) too seriously! It's the quickest way to become a crashing bore! Thanks for your clarification GRG, and my apologies for having played the 'crashing bore' in this discussion.

[raja]

Re: Blood Pressure Therapy...

Given the choice between accepting the consensus of roughly 98% of the worlds climate scientists, or accepting the skepticism of the remaining 2% - many of whom either have an axe to grind or have money in their pocket courtesy of the businesses that stand to profit from continued inaction - well, I find that an easy choice to make.

"A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

"In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte's survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.

Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment"
http://www.infowars.net/articles/aug...807Warming.htm