Iain Murray has a column on global warming in the Washington Times . 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:
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.
As any fule no, Florida was largely uninhabited before Hurricane Andrew.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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…
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?
“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.
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.
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].)
Anyone have a good blog on environmental policy/issues to recommend? thanks…
I read Crumb Trail.
He’s pretty smart.
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
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.
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.
Your analysis should include GHG generated by decomposing strawmen; a source of GHG on the radical increase.
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
“[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.
‘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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
“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.
”[…]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
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review