I challenge you to post one, just one even remotely honest thing from his damned website. Mr. I'll-defend-the-worst-scumfuckers-for-no-reason.
Here you go. As a bonus, it's a defense from the very sort of libel you've been engaging in.
Here's what a non-shill might have:
Any sort of real standing credentials(he has some low-grade expired credentials for appearing on air as weatherman), scientific papers published in an appropriate and notable journal, nuance in position based on available data, and a big one not take money from a partisan organization with a history attempting to confuse the public regarding science for profit
It's interesting how you gussy up the fallacy of argument from authority. The credentials have to be of a sort you approve of. The scientific papers have to be in journals you approve of. The nuance has to be of a sort you approve of. And the funding has to come from sources you approve of. Fuck you.
It's not hard to do that.
LOL. All we have to do is change your ridiculously high standards for disagreement. That is pretty easy, but you have to be willing to change your ways first.
Economics rests on assumptions that don't apply in the real world.
Such as what? As long as you have multiple parties with preferences, goods/services of value with respect to those preferences, and the ability to trade or seize, you have economics. That holds for a huge variety of systems throughout the natural world including virtually all human social systems.
I posted 2 distinct links supporting a reasonable fact
Not good enough. Both the links don't actually show what you think/claim they show. Just look at what you quote, being paid on occasion by an organization you dislike is far short of the evidence needed to back your original claim that Watts was a "paid shill".
And there is literally no threshold of evidence that is sufficient to convince you of a relatively benign point because you're so terrified of cognitive dissonance, that one blatant shill being a shill is too much for you.
You first have to try. Rational argument and evidence is what it takes. You have at best presented a modest amount of evidence that falls far short of what would be needed to back your claims.
And once again, a Slashdotter plays amateur psychologist while simultaneously exhibiting the symptoms they claim (note how often this word keeps coming up in my descriptions of your words) to see in me. Physician heal thyself.
Biology is not reducible to economics. Genes have no concept of debt, for example. Trying to force everything into economics is fundamentally flawed, because money is a human invention.
All these observations are irrelevant to economics. Nor am I reducing biology to economics. This is a single enormous economic system, not the whole of biology.
Watt is so much of a shithead that I'm willing to bypass my "message not person" rule due to extremeness and consistency of his particular problems.
Yea, right. I see no evidence here that you follow any such rule.
Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment.
You may have forgotten that you wrote "Watts is absolutely a paid shill. He is a serial liar, and lying about that is no surprise." I haven't however. Merely getting paid to speak is not a paid shill or a serial liar. I see evidence here instead of libel.
No mistake here, Watts is absolutely a paid shill. He is a serial liar, and lying about that is no surprise.
And your link doesn't back your claim.
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com.
When your link starts with amateur ad hominem attacks like the above, you just know it's going to be a pile of useless drivel. For example, they assert that Watts is "on the payroll" of the Heartland Institute while neglecting to mention that the evidence for that particular assertion is fake (they do so in a particularly cowardly way by citing this story which in turn makes the linkage without mentioning that the actual document which explicitly makes the connection probably was forged by Peter Gleick).
I wasn't addressing that particular claim, because it's far more important to communicate that Watts is a shithead who will engage in any lie he imagines he can get away with.
Well, I think there are more important things than whether or you can "communicate" that Watts is a shithead. You seem to be quite capable of communicating that a certain Slashdot poster going by the name "i kan reed" is a shithead, but having a bit less luck with that Watts thing. Maybe you should switch to stuff that's a bit more productive, like rational argument?
They are often left out in main stream journalism in the interest of simplifying the reporting.
Such as the IPCC executive summaries? Or certain climatologists testimonies to legislatures?
That's a non-answer. The answer has to be based on the physical limitations of the field you are studying.
If the field is physically limited so that it can't ever generate predictions that meet my expectations, then it is useless for use by me in prediction. I don't believe climatology qualifies. Instead I think instead this is another poor excuse for not doing due diligence before spreading FUD about climate change.
Scientists expectations are based on their knowledge of the uncertainty they have to deal with.
It is worth noting that these uncertainties only get mentioned when failure needs to be excused. For example, where is the discussion of the factor of three difference between low and high estimates for the global mean temperature forcing of a double of atmospheric CO2?
What are your expectations base on?
Accurately modeling climate phenomena over the next few decades.
You aren't actually posting anything that disagrees with what I observed. From your article:
Not Baseload
A quick glance at the following chart showing wind output from the four sites demonstrates that while there may be some value to diversification, we're not talking about anything like baseload power here. It's not necessary for wind to produce baseload power in order to be effectively integrated into the grid. Aggregate wind power needs only to be reasonably predictable and not so volatile that utility systems cannot keep up. After all, utilities have been coping with variations of demand, which is neither entirely predictable, nor flat.
So they admit the variability of wind power even with smoothing from geographical distribution. Heed their words.
I don't disagree, BUT a blanket statement was made about "most" corporations which turns out not to be useful simply because somewhere around half of corporations are trivial.
Keynesian is a principle of spending money when each dollar has the most positive impact (during periods of economic bust), and save/pay down debt when each dollar has the least impact.
You are begging the question in two ways. First, you assume that a dollar spent has more "positive impact" during an economic downturn. I don't believe that to be true. It can still have negative impact. Second, you are assuming you understand what economic effects are positive and negative.
For example, a near universal complaint on Slashdot today is the near-sightedness of global business. This ironically is frequently put in conjunction with a proposal to blow a wad of public funds on a huge, short-sighted government project. But I see a different problem here, the removal of risk from business creates moral hazard - namely, that the business acts in a way that would otherwise be detrimental to itself. The primary tool by which this risk is removed is Keynesian economics and associated bailout programs. The business screws up and the society bails it out either directly or through ample Keynesian spending.
Second, there's a fair-sized record of US recessions back to before the founding of the country. Recessions with more Keynesian spending don't fare any better than those with less though obviously the incentives are present for more Keynesian spending in more severe recessions. But I think there are three recent examples of particularly poor Keynesian-based recoveries in recent years, the Japanese recession of 1990-1991 and the subsequent "lost decade", the US recession of 2000-2001 which ended with the counterproductive real estate bubble, and of course, the real estate crisis and the subsequent failures of both the US and Europe to have a satisfactory recovery.
Again, where's the evidence that Keynesian economics works?
All the supply-side, business-cycle, and Austrian folks have making all sorts of dire predictions since 2008, none of which have been coming true. Krugman and others have been making predictions too (e.g., no inflation even though the US has been 'printing money' because of the zero-bound interest rates), and they've been shown to be correct these past few years. Keynesianism works: it makes accurate predictions.
Then where are these predictions of Krugman's so that we may determine for ourselves how full of bullshit you happen to be? To assist you in the above endeavor, I present a freshly googled list of failed Krugman predictions. The first part deals with a several years long series of failed predictions concerning Europe and the state of the Euro.
The second part deals with his inability to predict how the real estate crisis would manifest. The third part deals with a variety of issues, such as the changing nature of his predictions based on whether a Republican or Democrat party member happens to occupy the White House.
That third part is in some ways quite relevant to your claims above. For example, you wrote:
Krugman, probably the most well-known Keynsian, was shouting from the roof tops from 2001-2007 that the US was spending too much, cutting taxes too much, and generally fucking over their finances.
Krugman then changed his tune when Obama was in office, claiming among other things that too little had been spent on the extremely ample 2009 stimulus package. Or as you put this bit of self-serving toadying, "consistent with Keynesian economics". There's also the observation that Krugman greatly underestimated the extend and duration of unemployment.
A key problem which Keynesians fail to recognize is that economies naturally recover even when nothing is done. So the problem is not whether an economic recovery is due to Keynesian policies, but rather whether the Keynesian policies improved a situation that would have corrected itself anyway.
No, geographic distribution merely reduces it to some degree. And power loss from transmitting power over those long distances helps make the matter worse.
That's your ignorance speaking. It is a methodical study of a field and is subject to empirical observation just like any other field of science.
it is a behavioural science, which by nature incorporates a large measure of unpredictibilty and irrationality, because it by default deals with human behaviour.
It is mostly certainly not just a behavioral science. The parties to the economy don't even need to be sentient in order for the models to work.
As for GW: Not only have the models successfully reproduce all historical data since 1900
Idiotic. It's not hard to create a model which fits past data and yet has no predictive ability.
but the actual results of the past several years have continually been within the predictions of the models.
Only if your expectations are low enough that you can ignore the consistent undershooting of these models. Recall I wrote:
I doubt that there are many economic models (most particularly, the blatantly dishonest ones) for which modeler expectations aren't being met. That doesn't make the model not actively baneful.
I don't want models that meet your shitty expectations. I want models that accurately model the Earth's future climate.
And you have yet to mention anything which would actually significantly stress a civilization. A storm which rips off a few more shingles, levels a few more corn stalks, or breaks a few more windows is not going to threaten human civilization or agriculture.
Similarly, the economy is extremely adaptable. Even human-caused problems such as the recent real estate crisis don't cause much problems despite being larger perturbations of human economics than climate change is.
But what is most ludicrous is the assertion that shipping lanes are threatened. This is by far the most adaptable system you mention with real time adaption to weather much less climate. And its shore-side infrastructure can readily be modified to account for even the worst alleged sea level rises from global warming.
In today's post, the context is on his understanding of the issue is as limited as some random guy on the Internet.
I already covered that with "your rhetorical needs of the moment".
This can be applied in reverse. You can say in one post you can say all climate scientists are "well known" people in their fields who have made a career off promoting climate science, but in another post you can say climate scientists are nobodies in the sense what they do isn't actually science and their logic (or lack thereof) is as bad as any random guy on the Internet.
And that would be dishonest as well. Context doesn't magically make something dishonest. But when a person adopts contradictory contexts merely for the purposes of winning arguments and persuading people, then that becomes dishonest.
Sure, there are a lot of "closely held" companies, but most of them are pikers.
From this link:
In fact, 70% of all S corporations are owned by just one person, so the owner has complete discretion to decide on his or her salary.
In turn, S corporations made up in 2006 over 66% of all US corporations (and were steadily growing at a significantly faster rate than that of general businesses over the previous decade).
So it is likely by now that a bare majority of all corporations are single person operations who employ no one else other than the single owner (and probably a significant fraction of those in turn don't actually do anything at all aside from pay some annual licensing fees). That is the nature of the "pikers".
Except certain approaches, for instance Keynsian, actually have a track record of success in the 20th century.
Look at the track record some time. Keynesian economics is popular, not because it works, but because it's an easy and legal way to steal lots of public funds.
That's still judging the adjustments on your perception of bias by the scientists. Read and understand the papers that describe the reasons and means for the adjustments. Then we can have a reasonable conversation.
This is rubbish. Economics demonstrates that when there are high stakes involved, some scientists will prostitute themselves, insuring that their conclusions meet the desires of their masters. And they have no trouble coming up with plausible excuses such as your above "reasons and means for the adjustments".
I believe there is a strong correlation between economic ignorance and the belief that we must do something about climate change. The first paragraph is part of the reason why.
When people actually have experience with economics, they realize two things. First, that there actually are scientifically valid aspects to economics, such as the "law" of supply and demand, which are just as solidly demonstrated even by the standards of say, physics.
Second, that economics is not just frequently, but routinely and normally overwhelmed by conflicts of interest. There are way too many cases of things assumed to work merely because it is in the interest of the relevant parties to act on that assumption.
It sounds as if you think climate models are merely numerical exercises in curve fitting rather than models of the actual physical interactions that occur in the climate.
And you should be worried about that as well.
So far models are accurate within the expectations the modelers have for them.
My expectations count more to me than the modelers' expectations. They aren't accurate to within my expectations.
Economics has a huge problem here in spades. Expectations are a conveniently amorphous thing. I doubt that there are many economic models (most particularly, the blatantly dishonest ones) for which modeler expectations aren't being met. That doesn't make the model not actively baneful.
Slashdot Mirror
God damn are you disingenuous.
Back at you.
I challenge you to post one, just one even remotely honest thing from his damned website. Mr. I'll-defend-the-worst-scumfuckers-for-no-reason.
Here you go. As a bonus, it's a defense from the very sort of libel you've been engaging in.
Here's what a non-shill might have: Any sort of real standing credentials(he has some low-grade expired credentials for appearing on air as weatherman), scientific papers published in an appropriate and notable journal, nuance in position based on available data, and a big one not take money from a partisan organization with a history attempting to confuse the public regarding science for profit
It's interesting how you gussy up the fallacy of argument from authority. The credentials have to be of a sort you approve of. The scientific papers have to be in journals you approve of. The nuance has to be of a sort you approve of. And the funding has to come from sources you approve of. Fuck you.
It's not hard to do that.
LOL. All we have to do is change your ridiculously high standards for disagreement. That is pretty easy, but you have to be willing to change your ways first.
Economics rests on assumptions that don't apply in the real world.
Such as what? As long as you have multiple parties with preferences, goods/services of value with respect to those preferences, and the ability to trade or seize, you have economics. That holds for a huge variety of systems throughout the natural world including virtually all human social systems.
You cannot ignore the cost of the loan, even if you have the money in the bank you are loaning it to yourself.
I don't get your point. A pre-tax return of roughly 15% annually is pretty good even if you do have to borrow the money.
I posted 2 distinct links supporting a reasonable fact
Not good enough. Both the links don't actually show what you think/claim they show. Just look at what you quote, being paid on occasion by an organization you dislike is far short of the evidence needed to back your original claim that Watts was a "paid shill".
And there is literally no threshold of evidence that is sufficient to convince you of a relatively benign point because you're so terrified of cognitive dissonance, that one blatant shill being a shill is too much for you.
You first have to try. Rational argument and evidence is what it takes. You have at best presented a modest amount of evidence that falls far short of what would be needed to back your claims.
And once again, a Slashdotter plays amateur psychologist while simultaneously exhibiting the symptoms they claim (note how often this word keeps coming up in my descriptions of your words) to see in me. Physician heal thyself.
Biology is not reducible to economics. Genes have no concept of debt, for example. Trying to force everything into economics is fundamentally flawed, because money is a human invention.
All these observations are irrelevant to economics. Nor am I reducing biology to economics. This is a single enormous economic system, not the whole of biology.
Economics doesn't demonstrate that there are corrupt scientists, history does.
More accurately the history of economics.
Do you have an example of an overwhelming majority of scientists in a field who were corrupt?
Economics.
Hence, your claim is extraordinary, and requires extraordinary evidence.
Which is readily provided by a study of the history of economics.
Watt is so much of a shithead that I'm willing to bypass my "message not person" rule due to extremeness and consistency of his particular problems.
Yea, right. I see no evidence here that you follow any such rule.
Watts has been featured as a speaker at Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, for which he acknowledges receiving payment.
You may have forgotten that you wrote "Watts is absolutely a paid shill. He is a serial liar, and lying about that is no surprise." I haven't however. Merely getting paid to speak is not a paid shill or a serial liar. I see evidence here instead of libel.
Man, you'd think something had happened to the economy between 2007 and 2009 to make the situation different.
You mean between 2001 and 2009.
Same story. Economic recovery strategy promoted by those who would benefit from it most.
No mistake here, Watts is absolutely a paid shill. He is a serial liar, and lying about that is no surprise.
And your link doesn't back your claim.
Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com.
When your link starts with amateur ad hominem attacks like the above, you just know it's going to be a pile of useless drivel. For example, they assert that Watts is "on the payroll" of the Heartland Institute while neglecting to mention that the evidence for that particular assertion is fake (they do so in a particularly cowardly way by citing this story which in turn makes the linkage without mentioning that the actual document which explicitly makes the connection probably was forged by Peter Gleick).
I wasn't addressing that particular claim, because it's far more important to communicate that Watts is a shithead who will engage in any lie he imagines he can get away with.
Well, I think there are more important things than whether or you can "communicate" that Watts is a shithead. You seem to be quite capable of communicating that a certain Slashdot poster going by the name "i kan reed" is a shithead, but having a bit less luck with that Watts thing. Maybe you should switch to stuff that's a bit more productive, like rational argument?
They are often left out in main stream journalism in the interest of simplifying the reporting.
Such as the IPCC executive summaries? Or certain climatologists testimonies to legislatures?
That's a non-answer. The answer has to be based on the physical limitations of the field you are studying.
If the field is physically limited so that it can't ever generate predictions that meet my expectations, then it is useless for use by me in prediction. I don't believe climatology qualifies. Instead I think instead this is another poor excuse for not doing due diligence before spreading FUD about climate change.
Scientists expectations are based on their knowledge of the uncertainty they have to deal with.
It is worth noting that these uncertainties only get mentioned when failure needs to be excused. For example, where is the discussion of the factor of three difference between low and high estimates for the global mean temperature forcing of a double of atmospheric CO2?
What are your expectations base on?
Accurately modeling climate phenomena over the next few decades.
Not Baseload
A quick glance at the following chart showing wind output from the four sites demonstrates that while there may be some value to diversification, we're not talking about anything like baseload power here. It's not necessary for wind to produce baseload power in order to be effectively integrated into the grid. Aggregate wind power needs only to be reasonably predictable and not so volatile that utility systems cannot keep up. After all, utilities have been coping with variations of demand, which is neither entirely predictable, nor flat.
So they admit the variability of wind power even with smoothing from geographical distribution. Heed their words.
I don't disagree, BUT a blanket statement was made about "most" corporations which turns out not to be useful simply because somewhere around half of corporations are trivial.
Keynesian is a principle of spending money when each dollar has the most positive impact (during periods of economic bust), and save/pay down debt when each dollar has the least impact.
You are begging the question in two ways. First, you assume that a dollar spent has more "positive impact" during an economic downturn. I don't believe that to be true. It can still have negative impact. Second, you are assuming you understand what economic effects are positive and negative.
For example, a near universal complaint on Slashdot today is the near-sightedness of global business. This ironically is frequently put in conjunction with a proposal to blow a wad of public funds on a huge, short-sighted government project. But I see a different problem here, the removal of risk from business creates moral hazard - namely, that the business acts in a way that would otherwise be detrimental to itself. The primary tool by which this risk is removed is Keynesian economics and associated bailout programs. The business screws up and the society bails it out either directly or through ample Keynesian spending.
Second, there's a fair-sized record of US recessions back to before the founding of the country. Recessions with more Keynesian spending don't fare any better than those with less though obviously the incentives are present for more Keynesian spending in more severe recessions. But I think there are three recent examples of particularly poor Keynesian-based recoveries in recent years, the Japanese recession of 1990-1991 and the subsequent "lost decade", the US recession of 2000-2001 which ended with the counterproductive real estate bubble, and of course, the real estate crisis and the subsequent failures of both the US and Europe to have a satisfactory recovery.
All the supply-side, business-cycle, and Austrian folks have making all sorts of dire predictions since 2008, none of which have been coming true. Krugman and others have been making predictions too (e.g., no inflation even though the US has been 'printing money' because of the zero-bound interest rates), and they've been shown to be correct these past few years. Keynesianism works: it makes accurate predictions.
Then where are these predictions of Krugman's so that we may determine for ourselves how full of bullshit you happen to be? To assist you in the above endeavor, I present a freshly googled list of failed Krugman predictions. The first part deals with a several years long series of failed predictions concerning Europe and the state of the Euro.
The second part deals with his inability to predict how the real estate crisis would manifest. The third part deals with a variety of issues, such as the changing nature of his predictions based on whether a Republican or Democrat party member happens to occupy the White House.
That third part is in some ways quite relevant to your claims above. For example, you wrote:
Krugman, probably the most well-known Keynsian, was shouting from the roof tops from 2001-2007 that the US was spending too much, cutting taxes too much, and generally fucking over their finances.
Krugman then changed his tune when Obama was in office, claiming among other things that too little had been spent on the extremely ample 2009 stimulus package. Or as you put this bit of self-serving toadying, "consistent with Keynesian economics". There's also the observation that Krugman greatly underestimated the extend and duration of unemployment.
A key problem which Keynesians fail to recognize is that economies naturally recover even when nothing is done. So the problem is not whether an economic recovery is due to Keynesian policies, but rather whether the Keynesian policies improved a situation that would have corrected itself anyway.
No, geographic distribution merely reduces it to some degree. And power loss from transmitting power over those long distances helps make the matter worse.
economists are not scientists.
That's your ignorance speaking. It is a methodical study of a field and is subject to empirical observation just like any other field of science.
it is a behavioural science, which by nature incorporates a large measure of unpredictibilty and irrationality, because it by default deals with human behaviour.
It is mostly certainly not just a behavioral science. The parties to the economy don't even need to be sentient in order for the models to work.
As for GW: Not only have the models successfully reproduce all historical data since 1900
Idiotic. It's not hard to create a model which fits past data and yet has no predictive ability.
but the actual results of the past several years have continually been within the predictions of the models.
Only if your expectations are low enough that you can ignore the consistent undershooting of these models. Recall I wrote:
I doubt that there are many economic models (most particularly, the blatantly dishonest ones) for which modeler expectations aren't being met. That doesn't make the model not actively baneful.
I don't want models that meet your shitty expectations. I want models that accurately model the Earth's future climate.
And you have yet to mention anything which would actually significantly stress a civilization. A storm which rips off a few more shingles, levels a few more corn stalks, or breaks a few more windows is not going to threaten human civilization or agriculture.
Similarly, the economy is extremely adaptable. Even human-caused problems such as the recent real estate crisis don't cause much problems despite being larger perturbations of human economics than climate change is.
But what is most ludicrous is the assertion that shipping lanes are threatened. This is by far the most adaptable system you mention with real time adaption to weather much less climate. And its shore-side infrastructure can readily be modified to account for even the worst alleged sea level rises from global warming.
Fundamentally economics is the study of human psychology. At some point it goes beyond the kind of math that you can "check."
No, it is not. For example, answer this question. What is the largest market in the world?
Here's a hint, this market has somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^30 participants estimated.
The math of economics works whether humans are involved or not. I can say meaningful things about economics in another galaxy.
That wasn't really a question of economics more so outright cheating/lying by the bond rating agencies.
Conflict of interest is a standard economic feature.
In today's post, the context is on his understanding of the issue is as limited as some random guy on the Internet.
I already covered that with "your rhetorical needs of the moment".
This can be applied in reverse. You can say in one post you can say all climate scientists are "well known" people in their fields who have made a career off promoting climate science, but in another post you can say climate scientists are nobodies in the sense what they do isn't actually science and their logic (or lack thereof) is as bad as any random guy on the Internet.
And that would be dishonest as well. Context doesn't magically make something dishonest. But when a person adopts contradictory contexts merely for the purposes of winning arguments and persuading people, then that becomes dishonest.
Sure, there are a lot of "closely held" companies, but most of them are pikers.
From this link:
In fact, 70% of all S corporations are owned by just one person, so the owner has complete discretion to decide on his or her salary.
In turn, S corporations made up in 2006 over 66% of all US corporations (and were steadily growing at a significantly faster rate than that of general businesses over the previous decade).
So it is likely by now that a bare majority of all corporations are single person operations who employ no one else other than the single owner (and probably a significant fraction of those in turn don't actually do anything at all aside from pay some annual licensing fees). That is the nature of the "pikers".
Except certain approaches, for instance Keynsian, actually have a track record of success in the 20th century.
Look at the track record some time. Keynesian economics is popular, not because it works, but because it's an easy and legal way to steal lots of public funds.
That's still judging the adjustments on your perception of bias by the scientists. Read and understand the papers that describe the reasons and means for the adjustments. Then we can have a reasonable conversation.
This is rubbish. Economics demonstrates that when there are high stakes involved, some scientists will prostitute themselves, insuring that their conclusions meet the desires of their masters. And they have no trouble coming up with plausible excuses such as your above "reasons and means for the adjustments".
I believe there is a strong correlation between economic ignorance and the belief that we must do something about climate change. The first paragraph is part of the reason why.
When people actually have experience with economics, they realize two things. First, that there actually are scientifically valid aspects to economics, such as the "law" of supply and demand, which are just as solidly demonstrated even by the standards of say, physics.
Second, that economics is not just frequently, but routinely and normally overwhelmed by conflicts of interest. There are way too many cases of things assumed to work merely because it is in the interest of the relevant parties to act on that assumption.
It sounds as if you think climate models are merely numerical exercises in curve fitting rather than models of the actual physical interactions that occur in the climate.
And you should be worried about that as well.
So far models are accurate within the expectations the modelers have for them.
My expectations count more to me than the modelers' expectations. They aren't accurate to within my expectations.
Economics has a huge problem here in spades. Expectations are a conveniently amorphous thing. I doubt that there are many economic models (most particularly, the blatantly dishonest ones) for which modeler expectations aren't being met. That doesn't make the model not actively baneful.