• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global warming

mhaze said:
good article from Reason mag - Bold is mine.

Techno-Optimistic Environmentalism

Reframing the dismal science of ecology for the 21st century
Ronald Bailey | November 27, 2007

In their 2004 essay "The Death of Environmentalism," activists Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus famously declared, "We have become convinced that modern environmentalism, with all of its unexamined assumptions, outdated concepts and exhausted strategies, must die so that something new can live."

What killed environmentalism? Man-made global warming. The pair argued that the problem of global warming is too big to be handled by green incrementalism. Switching to bioethanol and compact fluorescent lighting simply won't do. Something much bigger is needed. And they argued that modern environmentalism was not up to the task.

They blamed environmentalism's political ineffectiveness on the fact that environmentalists were perceived as being little more than another special interest group. In addition, the two excoriated movement activists for their "failure to articulate an inspiring and positive vision." Environmentalists turned off possible supporters because they were invested in telling the public doom-and-gloom "I have a nightmare" stories rather than delivering "I have a dream" speeches.

Read the rest here.
Click to expand...

So... are you with em or agin em?

Michael and Ted that is.
 
bobdroege7 said:
So... are you with em or agin em?

Michael and Ted that is.
Click to expand...

Norhaus, I have quoted here numerous times, warmers always derisive because he is an economist, not a climatologist.

His peer reviewed articles make sense.

Nordhaus - Against the IPCC or Gore CO2 mitigation plan being economically effective
Nordhaus 2007 The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy Nordhaus, 2007 - The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
 
mhaze said:
Norhaus, I have quoted here numerous times, warmers always derisive because he is an economist, not a climatologist.

His peer reviewed articles make sense.

Nordhaus - Against the IPCC or Gore CO2 mitigation plan being economically effective
Nordhaus 2007 The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy Nordhaus, 2007 - The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
Click to expand...

So you agree that

nordaus; said:
"The underlying premise of this study is that global warming is a serious, perhaps even a grave societal issue."
Click to expand...
 
bobdroege7 said:
His peer reviewed articles make sense.

Nordhaus - Against the IPCC or Gore CO2 mitigation plan being economically effective
Nordhaus 2007 The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy Nordhaus, 2007 - The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
​
So you agree that
Originally Posted by nordaus;
"The underlying premise of this study is that global warming is a serious, perhaps even a grave societal issu
​
Click to expand...

A clarification. Nordhaus is an economist, not a climate scientist. Therefore he starts with some presumptions, and on those builds economic models.

For example, here is an assertion that is testable by an economist.
"Man made global warming requires urgent action now!".
​
How may that be done?
  • Presume that there is some "Man made global warming". Pick some range for it.
  • Study the consequences of "urgent action now", "no action", "urgent action later", "cap and trade", "fines and regulation", etc.
The method makes sense.

What does not make sense is what has been seen on this forum, of people disrespecting economists' input to the overall AGW/GW issue, and further, of presuming that "climate scientists" are capable of formulating public policy "solutions" that are essentially exercises in economics with any degree of professional competence.
 
mhaze said:
What does not make sense is what has been seen on this forum, of people disrespecting economists' input to the overall AGW/GW issue, and further, of presuming that "climate scientists" are capable of formulating public policy "solutions" that are essentially exercises in economics with any degree of professional competence.
Click to expand...

The disrespect is shown to those who put up economic arguments in a scientific discussion.

Economists (Stern, for instance) can argue about the implications of AGW in economic terms, and the implications of various (including no) mitigation strategies. As long as they don't try to intrude on scientific matters they're due the same basic respect any theoretical economist is.
 
bobdroege7 said:
So you agree that
"The underlying premise of this study is that global warming is a serious, perhaps even a grave societal issue."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The point that attracts mhaze (and his source) to Nordhaus is that he's arguing that even if this is the case, doing nothing that will disturb the free market response is the best option. It's the fall-back position. Impregnable, really, since after the event claims that things would have been worse given other policies are impossible to refute.

We're getting into the end-game, in political terms. The reality and importance of AGW is established, now comes the negotiation ...

Whether Stern or Nordhaus dominate procedings at Bali makes no difference because the Bali Conference itself will make no difference. We've bought the ticket, now we have to take the ride.

We're screwed.
 
I just have to get onto this from Nordhaus in May 2007

The Review’s unambiguous conclusions about the need for extreme immediate action will not survive the substitution of assumptions that are consistent with today’s marketplace real interest rates and savings rates.
Click to expand...

The consistency in such rates over the subsequent six months does call into serious question the efficacy of this line of thinking. Especially given that it's not in any way linked to AGW.

As I always say, to each economist the respect they're due. And the ridicule, of course.
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
I just have to get onto this from Nordhaus in May 2007



The consistency in such rates over the subsequent six months does call into serious question the efficacy of this line of thinking. Especially given that it's not in any way linked to AGW.

As I always say, to each economist the respect they're due. And the ridicule, of course.
Click to expand...

Can you make what you are trying to say a bit clearer? I probably know what you meant, and assume you are referring to Nordhaus's critique of Stern. By the way, Stern's an idiot. I've never read such a piece of garbage as the Stern Report. Your government should have refused to pay him for that work (except that his conclusions were what they told him they wanted, I presume).
 
Well, as I asked. So you want to discuss economics? Every time I've brought the subject up you treated it derisively since economics were not "climatologists". But okay, read the articles by Nordhaus and let's discuss them.
 
Can Statisticians Forecast Anything?

back to Armstrong, Are forecasts by scientists scientific forecasts?
numbers in brackets are page numbers to version 69 of the paper.

mhaze said:
Sounds like we are in agreement on the approach to the issue, then
lenny said:
if it is shown that Armstrong's method has systematic flaws when applied to physical systems as a whole, particularly in climate-like problems (extrapolation) then we have sufficient evidence to conclude it does not help in "chapter 8".

Armstrong's basic claim is that any analysis which fails to follow his principles fails to yield a scientific forecast. the question is whether or not his approach is applicable/helpful or not in climate science, not whether or not i like it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

armstrong cites quite a few (~50) "Clear Violations" of his forecasting principles, while the vast majority can be rejected i think some are very useful. the paper is hard for a physical scientist to read as armstrong stays in his own jargon (?what is "face validity"?) and preaches a bit. this paper is widely rejected because his "examples" confuse examples of good practice when forecasting physical systems with good practice when forecasting social or economic systems.

in short, he tends to deny the practical differences between forecasting a pendulum and forecasting the spot price of electricity.
that makes most of his arguments irrelevant to physical systems, and hence to chapter 8.

mhaze, what do you think is his most insightful/stunning criticism?

in terms of the IPCC, do you want to defend the relevance of his [11]:

"Prior to forecasting, agree on actions to take..."
"Select simple methods..."
"Shrink forecasts of change if there is high uncertainty..."
"Use safety factors..."
"Use out of sample error measures."
"Base comparisons of methods on large samples of forecasts"
"Conduct cost-benefit analysis"

there is also what appears to be a great deal of linear-systems intuition in his claims, would you defend [3]:

"When there is uncertainty in forecasting, forecasts should be conservative."

do people on this thread generally feel that forecasts for electricity prices, population growth, General Motors sales, are similar to forecasting whether or not it will rain within Manhattan on the day after tomorrow?

and more generally, should forecasters be telling policy makers what the must do, or should they merely aim to communicate what they know and what they know they do not know? (re: "...a policy maker first has to select an appropriate statistic..." [3])
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
Are you reading to find little juicy tidbits to cherry pick, or are you trying to understand what he had to say?
Click to expand...


Gimme a break, and some respect.

That is not cherry picking, that is a central theme to that paper.

Nordhaus said:
Neither extremes-do nothing or stop global warming in its tracks-are sensible targets today
Click to expand...

OK, not as chicken littleish as Gore, but something needs to be done.

Nordhaus said:
While economic studies in this area are subject to large uncertainties, the best guess in this study is that economic damages from climate change with no interventions will be in the order of 2 1/2 percent of world output by the end of the 21st century
Click to expand...

Looks pretty expensive to me, why not spend 2 1/2 percent of US GDP now?
Pay me now or pay me later.

Nordhaus said:
We suggest that a hybrid approach might help combine the strenghts of both quantity and price approaches. An example of a hybrid system might be a cap and trade system combined with a base carbon tax and a safety valve available at a penalty price. For example, the initial carbon tax might be $30 per ton carbon with safety valve purchases of additional permits available at a 50% premium.
Click to expand...

Cap and trade plus carbon taxes. Doesn't mention subsidizing alternate energy sources, nuclear power and shifting to a hydrogen ecomomy.

It is a fairly long paper and my english skills are limited at best, but I'll argue that this is one of the theses put forth in the Nordhaus paper

Nordhaus said:
Economic history and analysis indicate that it will be most effective to use market signals, primarily higher prices of carbon fuels, to give signals and provide incentives for consumers and firms to change their energy use and reduce their carbon emmission
Click to expand...

That sound alright with you Mhaze?
 
mhaze said:
A clarification. Nordhaus is an economist, not a climate scientist. Therefore he starts with some presumptions, and on those builds economic models.

For example, here is an assertion that is testable by an economist.
"Man made global warming requires urgent action now!".
​
How may that be done?
  • Presume that there is some "Man made global warming". Pick some range for it.
  • Study the consequences of "urgent action now", "no action", "urgent action later", "cap and trade", "fines and regulation", etc.
The method makes sense.

What does not make sense is what has been seen on this forum, of people disrespecting economists' input to the overall AGW/GW issue, and further, of presuming that "climate scientists" are capable of formulating public policy "solutions" that are essentially exercises in economics with any degree of professional competence.
Click to expand...

I'll agree with you on one principle, that the solution to global warming needs the input of more than just politicians and climate scientists. We do need to ask the questions, how do we do it and how do we pay for it. Economists and engineers are part of the solution.
 
bobdroege7 said:
I'll agree with you on one principle, that the solution to global warming needs the input of more than just politicians and climate scientists. We do need to ask the questions, how do we do it and how do we pay for it. Economists and engineers are part of the solution.
Click to expand...

It would be helpful if economists, as a whole, would be more constructive in their criticism. The scientists have come up with plan A, based on a successful implementation of the general plan with sulphates, but the net result from economists has been denial, with little in the way of something better than Kyoto.
 
a_unique_person said:
It would be helpful if economists, as a whole, would be more constructive in their criticism. The scientists have come up with plan A, based on a successful implementation of the general plan with sulphates, but the net result from economists has been denial, with little in the way of something better than Kyoto.
Click to expand...

Nordhaus at least says that Kyoto is a quarter full, not that anyone said Kyoto would do anything more that start on the path to a solution.

A lot of the obstacles seem to be how much is it going to cost and seem to think fixing it will destroy the world's economy. At least Nordhaus believes there is a cost to the economies with no action. Pay me now or pay me later.
 
a_unique_person said:
It would be helpful if economists, as a whole, would be more constructive in their criticism.
Click to expand...

yep, but then economists do not tend to do things as a whole. and they attack each other at least as strongly as they attach the physical scientists. World Economics Vol 8 #1 is mostly economist vs. economist (on climate). there is one apology reported (Tol to Team Stern ).

it would be nice of they were constrictive, but i'd rather have them clarify/agree on what their fundamental points of disagreement are/were...
 
a_unique_person said:
It would be helpful if economists, as a whole, would be more constructive in their criticism. The scientists have come up with plan A, based on a successful implementation of the general plan with sulphates, but the net result from economists has been denial, with little in the way of something better than Kyoto.
Click to expand...

I think there's some selection bias there, since contrarian (or even non-contrarian but presented that way) economists get an inordinate amount of coverage. Economists (like scientists) are not typically shouty types.

There'll be a wealth of new evidence about economists from the Bali conference and its aftermath. Stern is attending as part of the UK delegation. Whether anybody's taking McIntyre along I don't know; the Aussie option has certainly slammed shut :).

The problem with the current economic orthodoxy is that it's very market-oriented, which means variations around cap-and-trade are pretty much all we can expect (since that coincides with current political orthodoxy). Maybe that is the best way to go, but it's still a choice of one from one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom