Comments on: Uncertain science http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:39:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Antoni Jaume http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12187 Antoni Jaume Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:26:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12187 "[...]Because medium-term climatological modeling is notoriously inaccurate, and accurate predictions is what science is all about." Then economics is a lots less of a science than climatology. DSW “[...]Because medium-term climatological modeling is notoriously inaccurate, and accurate predictions is what science is all about.” Then economics is a lots less of a science than climatology. DSW

]]> By: Sebastian Holsclaw http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12186 Sebastian Holsclaw Wed, 31 Dec 2003 08:11:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12186 "Climatology is in fact far less developed than Economics Really? And we know this how?" Because medium-term climatological modeling is notoriously inaccurate, and accurate predictions is what science is all about. “Climatology is in fact far less developed than Economics Really? And we know this how?” Because medium-term climatological modeling is notoriously inaccurate, and accurate predictions is what science is all about.

]]> By: Jon H http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12185 Jon H Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:46:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12185 Walt Pohl writes: "If something like Kyoto was implemented, we would see an explosion in energy efficient products and technology." Maybe that would be the source of the mythical new jobs I keep hearing about that won't get sent overseas. Walt Pohl writes: “If something like Kyoto was implemented, we would see an explosion in energy efficient products and technology.” Maybe that would be the source of the mythical new jobs I keep hearing about that won’t get sent overseas.

]]> By: Chris Bertram http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12184 Chris Bertram Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:27:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12184 I doubt that the quotation is fabricated, but as it is a reply to a question which we aren't given and as it may form part of a longer answer (who knows?), or part of a string of answers to questions I can't see why anyone would place any reliance on it as presented to us. I doubt that the quotation is fabricated, but as it is a reply to a question which we aren’t given and as it may form part of a longer answer (who knows?), or part of a string of answers to questions I can’t see why anyone would place any reliance on it as presented to us.

]]> By: Stuart Buck http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12183 Stuart Buck Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:12:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12183 1. You're quite right on the first point. Davidson said nothing about people moving to areas more likely to experience extreme weather. Still, he did say that more and better reporting might be involved here, which is Murray's main point. 2. As to your second point, so what? Do you have any evidence that this particular quotation is fabricated? Or do you simply assume that anyone who disagrees with you on a policy issue <i>never</i> tells the truth? "People who disagree with me are always liars" isn't a very useful epistemological heuristic, unless you have somehow tapped into God's omniscience. 1. You’re quite right on the first point. Davidson said nothing about people moving to areas more likely to experience extreme weather. Still, he did say that more and better reporting might be involved here, which is Murray’s main point. 2. As to your second point, so what? Do you have any evidence that this particular quotation is fabricated? Or do you simply assume that anyone who disagrees with you on a policy issue never tells the truth? “People who disagree with me are always liars” isn’t a very useful epistemological heuristic, unless you have somehow tapped into God’s omniscience.

]]> By: Chris Bertram http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12182 Chris Bertram Tue, 30 Dec 2003 17:01:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12182 First, the risible part about people moving to areas susceptible to extreme events isn't there anyway. Second, the url you give links to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (of which Iain Murray is a fellow) and involves them citing a fellow global warming sceptic's account of what Davidson says! First, the risible part about people moving to areas susceptible to extreme events isn’t there anyway. Second, the url you give links to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (of which Iain Murray is a fellow) and involves them citing a fellow global warming sceptic’s account of what Davidson says!

]]> By: Stuart Buck http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12181 Stuart Buck Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:33:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12181 Chris might find it useful to consider Davidson's actual words, as <a href="http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=3572">quoted here</a>: <blockquote>When this possibility was put to the Director of the World Climate Program for the WMO, Ken Davidson, he replied, "You are correct that the scientific evidence (statistical and empirical) are (sic) not present to conclusively state that the number of events have (sic) increased. However, the number of extreme events that are being reported and are truly extreme events has increased both through the meteorological services and through the aid agencies as well as through the disaster reporting agencies and corporations. <b>So, this could be because of improved monitoring and reporting.</b>"</blockquote> Chris -- do you have any reason for claiming that Davidson's statement fails to substantiate the line you quote from the Murray article? Looks like it's exactly on point to me. Chris might find it useful to consider Davidson’s actual words, as quoted here:
When this possibility was put to the Director of the World Climate Program for the WMO, Ken Davidson, he replied, “You are correct that the scientific evidence (statistical and empirical) are (sic) not present to conclusively state that the number of events have (sic) increased. However, the number of extreme events that are being reported and are truly extreme events has increased both through the meteorological services and through the aid agencies as well as through the disaster reporting agencies and corporations. So, this could be because of improved monitoring and reporting.“
Chris—do you have any reason for claiming that Davidson’s statement fails to substantiate the line you quote from the Murray article? Looks like it’s exactly on point to me.

]]> By: Robin Green http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12180 Robin Green Tue, 30 Dec 2003 15:17:10 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12180 <i>The problem with this statement is the implicit assumption that the motivation to develop such products doesn’t already exist.</i> It does, but Kyoto would mean greater incentives and more subsidies, which might be just what alternative technologies need to get going. The problem with this statement is the implicit assumption that the motivation to develop such products doesn’t already exist. It does, but Kyoto would mean greater incentives and more subsidies, which might be just what alternative technologies need to get going.

]]> By: Alan K. Henderson http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12179 Alan K. Henderson Tue, 30 Dec 2003 06:00:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12179 ‘If something like Kyoto was implemented, we would see an explosion in energy efficient products and technology.’ The problem with this statement is the implicit assumption that the motivation to develop such products doesn't already exist. Energy costs money. Energy efficiency means cost efficiency. Everybody wants to save a buck. Efficiency also translates into less pollution. A coal-fired electric plant that powers 100,000 homes will produce fewer emissions than 100,000 homes with a lump of coal in each fireplace. The moral is that the profit motive is already aimed in the long run toward cleaner power sources. Why do many environmentalists oppose nuclear energy? It's got zero emissions, and the waste can be <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22898">recycled into fuel rods</a>, thus improving on current nuclear efficiency and reducing the waste stockpile. ‘If something like Kyoto was implemented, we would see an explosion in energy efficient products and technology.’ The problem with this statement is the implicit assumption that the motivation to develop such products doesn’t already exist. Energy costs money. Energy efficiency means cost efficiency. Everybody wants to save a buck. Efficiency also translates into less pollution. A coal-fired electric plant that powers 100,000 homes will produce fewer emissions than 100,000 homes with a lump of coal in each fireplace. The moral is that the profit motive is already aimed in the long run toward cleaner power sources. Why do many environmentalists oppose nuclear energy? It’s got zero emissions, and the waste can be recycled into fuel rods, thus improving on current nuclear efficiency and reducing the waste stockpile.

]]> By: Charlie Murtaugh http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12162 Charlie Murtaugh Tue, 30 Dec 2003 05:13:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12162 <i>"[T]he alleged increase in extreme weather events may simply be due to better reporting, as more people move to areas susceptible to such events."</i> Chris may mock this idea, and perhaps in terms of the global warming issue it is risible indeed, but as a general phenomenon, "increased prevalence" due to increased reporting is probably quite prevalent. A lot of people think that this accounts for at least some of the increase in autism rates; for sure it accounts for ADHD. My favorite statistical artifact is the alleged "epidemic" of cancer that the WHO has recently <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/releases/2003/pr27/en/">hyped</a>. Since cancer is a disease of aging, and more and more people are surviving to old age (thanks to better hygiene, nutrition, vaccinations, etc.), increasing numbers of people will get cancer -- even an increasing proportion, as the average age of the population increases. All this, in the absence of any change in cancer <i>risk</i>. “[T]he alleged increase in extreme weather events may simply be due to better reporting, as more people move to areas susceptible to such events.” Chris may mock this idea, and perhaps in terms of the global warming issue it is risible indeed, but as a general phenomenon, “increased prevalence” due to increased reporting is probably quite prevalent. A lot of people think that this accounts for at least some of the increase in autism rates; for sure it accounts for ADHD. My favorite statistical artifact is the alleged “epidemic” of cancer that the WHO has recently hyped. Since cancer is a disease of aging, and more and more people are surviving to old age (thanks to better hygiene, nutrition, vaccinations, etc.), increasing numbers of people will get cancer—even an increasing proportion, as the average age of the population increases. All this, in the absence of any change in cancer risk.

]]> By: nnyhav http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12161 nnyhav Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:53:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12161 <b>Walt -</b> One can perform experiments in QED or nuclear physics. (One might also do so in Econ, but it's much more expensive.) We have more experience in economic than in climate modelling (and not just backtests to go on); major variables (eg ocean gas transport) remain unparameterised. Has anyone argued here "do nothing" or "climatologists predicted global cooling in the 70s, and thus they must be wrong now"? (Our state of knowledge is certainly better, but the consensus was/is no less contentious.) I will argue that Kyoto is fundamentally flawed as an accounting system based more on politics than science (eg conifer carbon sinks), and that the science in its current state favours an incremental approach along with more intensive research. Not immediate, drastic measures to exorcise a secular apocalypse; our risk assessment's too uncertain and too long-term for that. Walt - One can perform experiments in QED or nuclear physics. (One might also do so in Econ, but it’s much more expensive.) We have more experience in economic than in climate modelling (and not just backtests to go on); major variables (eg ocean gas transport) remain unparameterised. Has anyone argued here “do nothing” or “climatologists predicted global cooling in the 70s, and thus they must be wrong now”? (Our state of knowledge is certainly better, but the consensus was/is no less contentious.) I will argue that Kyoto is fundamentally flawed as an accounting system based more on politics than science (eg conifer carbon sinks), and that the science in its current state favours an incremental approach along with more intensive research. Not immediate, drastic measures to exorcise a secular apocalypse; our risk assessment’s too uncertain and too long-term for that.

]]> By: Alan http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12160 Alan Tue, 30 Dec 2003 04:33:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12160 Three interesting ideas about climate change, man-made or not:- 1. Global climate models show that because the 48 states of the USA have north-south mountain ranges on each coast, climate changes in the USA would be less than in any other continental land mass. 2. If the Eurowhiners and rice munchers want to waste resources on solving a problem that doesn't exist, let 'em. Gives the USA a competitive advantage. 3. Notice a recession after the Mississippi floods or after Andrew? Nope? That's because the economy of the USA can absorb the occasional storm. The other guys can't? Oh, too bad. Three interesting ideas about climate change, man-made or not:- 1. Global climate models show that because the 48 states of the USA have north-south mountain ranges on each coast, climate changes in the USA would be less than in any other continental land mass. 2. If the Eurowhiners and rice munchers want to waste resources on solving a problem that doesn’t exist, let ‘em. Gives the USA a competitive advantage. 3. Notice a recession after the Mississippi floods or after Andrew? Nope? That’s because the economy of the USA can absorb the occasional storm. The other guys can’t? Oh, too bad.

]]> By: Walt Pohl http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12159 Walt Pohl Tue, 30 Dec 2003 03:26:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12159 Climatology is certainly younger than economics, but that doesn't make it less developed. Quantum electrodynamics and nuclear physics are both younger than economics, but they are certainly more developed. (This is through no fault of economists: protons are more predictable than people.) I have no objection to a carbon tax, or any other alternative to Kyoto. I have no objection if the US eschews treaties, but unilaterally reduces its carbon emissions. What I do object to is that we should do nothing. The argument that climatologists predicted global cooling in the 70s, and thus they must be wrong now, puzzles me. Tragically, I'm old enough to remember the 70s, and back then some climatologists predicted global cooling, but some were already predicting global warming, while others said it was too soon to tell. Now, thirty years later, climatologists have come close to a consensus that global warming is happening. To me, that's an argument for taking global warming seriously. Climatology is certainly younger than economics, but that doesn’t make it less developed. Quantum electrodynamics and nuclear physics are both younger than economics, but they are certainly more developed. (This is through no fault of economists: protons are more predictable than people.) I have no objection to a carbon tax, or any other alternative to Kyoto. I have no objection if the US eschews treaties, but unilaterally reduces its carbon emissions. What I do object to is that we should do nothing. The argument that climatologists predicted global cooling in the 70s, and thus they must be wrong now, puzzles me. Tragically, I’m old enough to remember the 70s, and back then some climatologists predicted global cooling, but some were already predicting global warming, while others said it was too soon to tell. Now, thirty years later, climatologists have come close to a consensus that global warming is happening. To me, that’s an argument for taking global warming seriously.

]]> By: bryan http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12178 bryan Mon, 29 Dec 2003 23:01:27 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12178 'If something like Kyoto was implemented, we would see an explosion in energy efficient products and technology.' hmm, it just struck me in a funny way that the requirements of anything like Kyoto can be seen as something like a Keynesian social program. ‘If something like Kyoto was implemented, we would see an explosion in energy efficient products and technology.’ hmm, it just struck me in a funny way that the requirements of anything like Kyoto can be seen as something like a Keynesian social program.

]]> By: i dunno http://crookedtimber.org/2003/12/29/uncertain-science/comment-page-1/#comment-12177 i dunno Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:14:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=820#comment-12177 Your analysis should include GHG generated by decomposing strawmen; a source of GHG on the radical increase. Your analysis should include GHG generated by decomposing strawmen; a source of GHG on the radical increase.

]]>