Iain Murray has “a column on global warming in the Washington Times”:http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20031226-114728-6336r.htm . As is typical of the genre, the column employs very different epistemic standards when assessing the claims of scientists about climate change than it does when invoking the projections of enviro-sceptics about the economic consequences of Kyoto. Be that as it may, I thought the following sentence worthy of at least an honourable mention in any “It could have been in _The Onion_ ” competition:
bq. Moreover, the alleged increase in extreme weather events may simply be due to better reporting, as more people move to areas susceptible to such events.
{ 29 comments }
Alan 12.29.03 at 11:45 am
As any fule no, Florida was largely uninhabited before Hurricane Andrew.
bart 12.29.03 at 12:05 pm
err, you carefully excised the following sentence:
“Indeed, the director of the World Climate Program for the World Meteorological Association, Ken Davidson, was forced to admit as much this year after his organization released an alarmist warning on the subject.”
And then in your next post, you criticize others for “spinning”!
A bit of a whoops moment, that.
Chris Bertram 12.29.03 at 12:19 pm
1. The next post wasn’t mine, it was Kieran’s.
2. If you think that additional sentence substantiates the one I quoted then I really don’t know what to say to you.
Shai 12.29.03 at 2:00 pm
On a related note, mitworld has a fascinating lecture titled “The Impact of Combustion Emissions on the Atmosphere: New Tools and Techniques“. I was pleased to hear about the science behind this for once. (note: there’s a lot of jargon, but he keeps it simple, around chem100 level)
nnyhav 12.29.03 at 3:09 pm
Chris, your own epistemic standards seem to be slipping in confusing “statist environmentalists”, “climate alarmists”, and “green activists” with scientists. Even the slamming of IPCC for its economic misprojections (by any measure less honest than Lomborg’s) is at one remove from the scientists, themselves professional skeptics, even if we’ve all long been responsible for all the world’s problems.
But objective analysis demonstrates that it’s alltoo much anyway.
DJW 12.29.03 at 5:46 pm
Hmm. I’m trying figure out if it’s worth my time and effort to figure out what the heck that last post was trying to say. I’m leaning towards “no.”
Anyone have a good blog on environmental policy/issues to recommend? thanks…
Poin D 12.29.03 at 5:56 pm
And of course, the words “Washington Times” should immediately wake up the little skeptic bird on your shoulder, given its owner, the right(-wing) dishonorable Revernd Moon, who pumps millions into it every year, keeping afloat its Bush-friendly perspective. Remember all those paid presences put in by the elder Bush at Moonie events, including a mass wedding?
Russell L. Carter 12.29.03 at 6:05 pm
“Anyone have a good blog on environmental policy/issues to recommend?”
http://www.davidappell.com/
The flat-earthers infesting the comments are especially entertaining and highly useful for understanding the mindset of the “sceptic” crowd.
Walt Pohl 12.29.03 at 7:05 pm
Chris, you make a very important point. While climatology isn’t an exact science, it’s not like it’s any less exact than economics.
While I don’t have a strong opinion on Kyoto, per se, I think that the Kyoto critics are (surprisingly) underestimating the ability of capitalist societies to adapt. If something like Kyoto was implemented, we would see an explosion in energy efficient products and technology.
nnyhav 12.29.03 at 8:11 pm
WaltPohl: Climatology is in fact far less developed than Economics (though, despite differing time horizons, Keynes’ comment may be extended to suit, even unto heat-death of the Universe), and a rickety foundation (esp in combination with econ) upon which to impose top-down solutions a la Kyoto (I prefer bottom-up, eg mitigation via carbon tax). (And, as to adaptation to artificial constraints, human experimentation still ethically requires informed consent.)
(I’ll try to type more slowly for djw’s sake … reiterating that 1: agriculture has been and remains the prime contributor to GHG generation and other envirochanges; 2: Science should inform policy, not be driven by it [cf Lysenko].)
Mikhel 12.29.03 at 8:37 pm
Anyone have a good blog on environmental policy/issues to recommend? thanks…
I read Crumb Trail.
He’s pretty smart.
alkali 12.29.03 at 8:39 pm
Climatology is in fact far less developed than Economics
Really? And we know this how?
and a rickety foundation … upon which to impose top-down solutions a la Kyoto (I prefer bottom-up, eg mitigation via carbon tax)
How is a carbon-tax more bottom-up than Kyoto?
human experimentation still ethically requires informed consent
Does this mean that the oil companies have to get my written permission to sell their greenhouse-gas-generating products?
agriculture has been and remains the prime contributor to GHG generation
If by “prime contributor” you mean about 20%, absolutely, yes
Science should inform policy, not be driven by it
Which is why the preference for not taking any action to reduce GHGs should be accorded no weight
nnyhav 12.29.03 at 9:42 pm
alkali – 1: How we know. 2-3: The citizenry gets to play. 4: My bad (wording): elimination of sinks meant to be included in GHG-gen. 5: Strawmen have little weight anyway.
alkali 12.29.03 at 10:07 pm
nnyhav’s demonstration that climatology is less certain than economics is a Newsweek article from 1975 reprinted on an industry web site which states that some climatologists were concerned about global cooling, which is all you need to know about anything he might have to say.
i dunno 12.29.03 at 10:14 pm
Your analysis should include GHG generated by decomposing strawmen; a source of GHG on the radical increase.
bryan 12.29.03 at 11:01 pm
‘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.
Walt Pohl 12.30.03 at 3:26 am
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.
Alan 12.30.03 at 4:33 am
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.
nnyhav 12.30.03 at 4:53 am
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.
Charlie Murtaugh 12.30.03 at 5:13 am
“[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.
Alan K. Henderson 12.30.03 at 6:00 am
‘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.
Robin Green 12.30.03 at 3:17 pm
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.
Stuart Buck 12.30.03 at 3:33 pm
Chris might find it useful to consider Davidson’s actual words, as quoted here:
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 Bertram 12.30.03 at 5:01 pm
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!
Stuart Buck 12.30.03 at 5:12 pm
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.
Chris Bertram 12.30.03 at 5:27 pm
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.
Jon H 12.30.03 at 6:46 pm
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.
Sebastian Holsclaw 12.31.03 at 8:11 am
“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.
Antoni Jaume 01.01.04 at 5:26 pm
“[…]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
Comments on this entry are closed.