Cafe Hayek: Will Gore Warm to Stossel?

« Some wisdom from Will | Main | The Essence of a Masonomist» Don Boudreaux

October 18, 2007

Will Gore Warm to Stossel?

Don Boudreaux

ABC News' and 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel will have a segment, on tomorrow night's 20/20 telecast (8:00pm, EDT), on why the debate over global warming is not over -- or, ought not be over. Tune in. I will.

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Environment | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e54f0e52028834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Will Gore Warm to Stossel?:

Comments

I'm sure that Stossel's piece will be up to his usual high journalistic standards, and that every substantive claim he makes will be an accurate representation of the conclusions reached by peer-reviewed research, published in scientific journals relevant to the subject. Right?

Posted by: Jestak | Oct 18, 2007 1:13:58 PM

Just like Gore!

Posted by: gator80 | Oct 18, 2007 3:37:03 PM

Well, lets see. I am very close to one of the groups that runs one of these very large computer simulations on which the IPCC relies and know a fair number of the key personal personally quite well. If you want my judgement: These are incredibly honest, hard working, good scientists, and certainly very far away from any environmental activist spirit (think more physic geeks). They say that the general scientific debate is over, i.e. they feel that in general it is beyond reasonable doubt sure that humans are warming the climate and that this effect will accelerate over the next couple of hundred years. They are VERY aware about the uncertainties, and they engage in massive sensitivity analysis, but the results are robust (I mean gee, e.g. this cloud story is just silly. The global warming sceptics always come around and say "Oh, but clouds are not well understood", as if the mainstream scientists didn't know that. Of course they know, they work hard to improve the situation and in the meantime they do sensitivity analysis on whether that uncertainty matters for the general conclusion. And it turns out, it doesn't. Really, there is no smoking gun here).

Them being geeks, they don't engage in much publicity. They cannot stop lunatics like Gore. I think it is a real pitty that the IPCC and Gore were thrown into the same pot here, the scientists working on that really don't deserve that.

But, while the natural science debate at least is settled in so far that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity, the economic debate isn't. Again, none of the natural scientists I know would claim that they could a) evaluate how much of climate change should be prevented nor b) how it should be done. Those are economic questions, and if you just have a brief look at the literature, THAT is where the real debate is going on right now.

So, please, do something for your credibility: If you are sceptical of large CO2 emission mitigation measures, look at the literature on the economics of climate change, you will find ample support for that there. Don't try to argue with the natural scientists though, that is just silly. Just because some news people can find some people that disagree, you don't have a point. And in particular I don't really think you are in a position to evaluate these questions. I am neither, but I know people that are and I don't have the impression at all that they are evading the points that are brought up by the sceptics.

Posted by: David | Oct 18, 2007 4:14:53 PM

Oh, by the way, this is a suggestion for EconTalk: Why don't you invite someone like Bill Nordhaus or maybe Martin Weitzman to talk about climate change? Both are incredibly respected economists and would certainly bring a very interesting perspective to the table.

Posted by: David | Oct 18, 2007 4:16:45 PM

I encourage all of you to watch the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Once one is presented with the real history and science behind "global warming" I believe their attitude will change. Carbon dioxide accounts for an extremely small percentage of the atmosphere. Almost all of the CO2 is produced by natural forces like volcanos, decay, and the ocean. You could stop all human productivity for the rest of history and only remove a minute percentage of the CO2 in the air. I look forward to John's report.

Posted by: Chris | Oct 18, 2007 4:32:36 PM

Jestak, The debate over global warming is not just about science, peer reviewed and published or otherwise. The scientists are a part of the conversation, but not the whole conversation. Nor do they drive the conversation.

It's kind of like how in a large enough software company, you don't let the coders decide the feature set of the product, when the product is ready to ship, etc. The coders certainly have some valuable input to contribute. But they are not usually the ones who are ultimately responsible to investors, customers, etc.

Scientists tend to be like coders, in that they have a stronger than normal belief they are right and are often self-righteous about their level of knowledge. Some develop significant skills outside their domain of expertise. In a software company, if it works, it's not hurting too many people to try. When it comes to big decisions about the future of mankind, it is best to keep their influence proportional and small. We haven't figured out a good way to hold the scientists (or their process) responsible for bad decisions they drag us into.

Posted by: Brad | Oct 18, 2007 4:50:39 PM

I am very close to one of the groups that runs one of these very large computer simulations on which the IPCC relies

Computer simulations dutifully produce the answer they are programmed to produce.

There is some science that can be done in a laboratory to support the manmade global warming thesis. Specifically, it can be shown that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of sunlight.

However, once these wavelengths are absorbed once, they can't be absorbed again no matter how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere. In other words, science says each additional unit of CO2 has less effect than the one before it.

So, why do these models always seem to have accelerating effects? Answer: because they assume them.

But does it really stand to reason that our climate would have a tendency to de-stabilize rather than re-stabilize when confronted with change?

In nature, things that tend away from stable equilibria don't tend to last long.

Posted by: diz | Oct 18, 2007 5:36:08 PM

I encourage all of you to watch the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle. Once one is presented with the real history and science behind "global warming" I believe their attitude will change.

Posted by: Chris

Chris that documentary IS the swindle. You've been had.
I always wonder why do economist NOT want global warming to be true. Actually I don't wonder that any more. The reason people like the professors here don't want global warming to be true is glaringly clear. I just wonder if they've ever thought to ask themselves that question. That is, hav ethey asked themselves, " Why is it...that against all scientific consensus I don't want global warming to be true?" Post like this one make it obvious they fear the truth. In Davids excellent post above (except for calling Gore a lunatic) he mentions that the debate is economic. I postulate he is exactly correct and that is what the liberal economists fear.

Any suggestion that the science of global warming is settled is scary when the implication now is that the focus of unsettled questions is their core beliefs in free markets and their ability or lack there of to correct for such externalities.

Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 18, 2007 6:47:51 PM

Michael Mann’s contribution to Gore’s and the IPCC’s global warming effort was the so-called “hockey stick,” which purportedly showed a sharp upward swing in northern hemisphere temps in the 20th century, presumably caused by man-made industrial emissions. Not surprisingly, the hockey stick is conspicuously absent from the 4th IPCC report.

Guess what? It was wrong.

Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre demonstrated that any data plugged into Mann’s statistical process yielded hockey stick-like results.

He used faulty statistical methods, a mistake to which all scientists are prone.

The IPCC scientists most likely are functioning from a pure scientific standpoint. Scientists make mistakes, have biases, and have blind spots just like every other human being, and to believe otherwise is foolish, and is pure hubris when stated by other scientists that they don’t (“The debate is over”).

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Oct 18, 2007 6:56:40 PM

Here’s the link:

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/
Climate_L.pdf

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Oct 18, 2007 6:58:35 PM

I wonder, David, how much funding those scientists will receive if they don't say that global warming is caused by humans. I'm not saying they're dishonest, I'm just saying that bias exists even when we fight it.

I have both built and relied on complicated mathematical models in my career. So have extraordinary Ph.D's, much smarter than I, in various hedge funds. They were a little shocked when their funds blew up this summer. It's just a reminder of how much models can deviate from reality. How inaccurate predictions can be and how costly the wrong bet based on these predictions can become. And financial models have fewer variables than global warming models.

One of the problems that these very smart people have is that their models removes all their doubts about the accuracy of their predictions and that's just dangerous. The only real consensus among these scientists is that most of their models produce the same results but that's because most of their inputs are the same.

I am not skeptical about their historical measurements. I am rightfully skeptical about their predictions.

Posted by: Methinks | Oct 18, 2007 8:53:50 PM

Just to riff off of fellow trader Methinks, any model you build - and these scientists have built many, and concealed the methodologies – contains false assumptions (e.g. current models use 4- to 6-times current CO2 levels and incorrectly assume a linear relationship between CO2 ppm/temperature).

Also, the problem of “smoothing data” from different sources (tree rings, ice cores, etc.) is very problematic. That process alone introduces bias.

Plus, there are

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Oct 18, 2007 9:33:19 PM

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Oct 18, 2007 9:34:26 PM

I’m having some link posting problems, undoubtedly caused by global warming. Anyway…

Plus, there are location problems with “official” weather stations:

http://www.surfacestations.org

I am very skeptical of their measurements and data sets, as any skeptical empiricist should be.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Oct 18, 2007 9:37:16 PM

Completing the thought:

Methinks says: “They were a little shocked when their [statistical model-based] funds blew up this summer.”

I say: “and these scientists have built many [statistical models], and concealed the methodologies”

The difference here is that hedge fund models’ predictions and accuracy are tested every single day; practically none of global warming models have been subjected to either pro-forma or “real world” testing.

Both Methinks and I could care less who signed off on what “model;” show us actual numbers, methodologies, an open your entire process to true scientific scrutiny, instead of some weak “peer-reviewed” bs excuse.

And please preface any global warming claims with “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Oct 18, 2007 10:33:06 PM

Can this therefore disprove macro- and micro- economic speculation from doomsayers such as Libertarians who have dire predictions for society as we aren't exchanging gold and silver coins? 'Twas interesting note that at mises.org the economic savants there only complain about potential macro- events but don't argue about micro- events which might actually be meaningful to the average person. If the Austrians had any wonderful economic insight towards the micro- events that they could guide business and company owners in way they'd be leaders in the marketplace then maybe they'd get some real credibility. But instead to lament because the market isn't free therefore society's going to collapse any ol' day. But then I s'pose if someone keeps complaining that the world's coming to end then one day they'll be right.

Posted by: Gil | Oct 18, 2007 11:46:42 PM

We haven't figured out a good way to hold the scientists (or their process) responsible for bad decisions they drag us into.

Posted by: Brad

Yeah, same thing with economist.

Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 18, 2007 11:49:29 PM

Yeah, see Great Depression, moron.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Oct 19, 2007 12:00:20 AM

"show us actual numbers, methodologies, an open your entire process to true scientific scrutiny, instead of some weak “peer-reviewed” bs excuse."

Mesa Econoguy, two questions for you:

1. What is true scientific scrutiny according to you?
2. Why do you call the peer-reviewed process weak?

Posted by: Sanjiv | Oct 19, 2007 12:19:00 AM

1)What is “true scientific scrutiny”? Well, let’s see:
Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning,[1] the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]

That’s clearly not what’s going on here:

“McIntyre:“On Mann’s FTP site, the directory
for the North American network contains a subdirectory
with the striking name BACKTO_1400-CENSORED. The
folder contains PCs that looked like the ones we produced, but
it was not clear how they had been calculated.We wondered if
the folder had anything to do with the bristlecone pine series:
this was a bulls eye.We were able to show that the fourteen
bristlecone pine series that effectively made up Mann’s PC1
(and six others) had been excluded from the PC calculations in
thecensored folder.Without the bristlecones sites, there were no
hockey sticks for Mann’s method to mine for, and the results
came out like ours.The calculations used in Mann’s paper included
the controversial bristlecone pine series, which dominate
the PC1 and impart the characteristic hockey stick shape to the
PC1 and thereafter to the final temperature reconstruction.
Mann and his colleagues never reported the results obtained
from excluding the bristlecone pines, which were adverse to
their claims.”

It’s really hard to test hypotheses when multiple parties conceal data or processes (Mann, et al.).

2)The so-called peer-review process, as cited in global warming papers, does not yield a “consensus”:

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/
?q=MjUzYTMwMDNjZmM3OTQxMjNjZjM3OGE4NDEzODhjNjY=

2 return questions for you, Sanjiv:

1) What do you think it is, and how does our current “global warming” paradigm fit any of these parameters?

Do not use “scientific consensus,” “Nobel Prize,” or “overwhelming evidence” in your answer. Be very specific.

2) How do you explain this apparent concealment of these data and methodologies? Could it possibly be to conceal what is at best a statistical mistake, and at worst an active suppression of dissent within the scientific community in order to preserve research funding/a seat at the policymaking table?

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Oct 19, 2007 1:02:21 AM

Jestak, The debate over global warming is not just about science, peer reviewed and published or otherwise.

Brad, the article that Donald links to makes it clear that Stossel's special will make numerous claims about the science, so yes, when it comes to that particular event, the debate is about the science.

And yes, it is true that others besides scientists should have a voice when it comes to policy, but all discussion of policy has to be based on a correct understanding of the science, something that Stossel seldom, if ever, contributes to.

Posted by: Jestak | Oct 19, 2007 1:02:39 AM

I'm sorry, but we have a hard enough time understanding the economy with its trillions of interacting parts. Sure we know some things--ceterus parabus (sorry my Latin stinks). For example, minimum wages will cause a rise in unemployment, but not if they are accomapnied by a shifting out of the demand for labor. Although we can assume that the overall level of employment will be lower than it would have been--but then again we have no idea what it would have been otherwise. We know that dealing with global warming (or at least CO2 emissions) will have costs--it is foolish to think otherwise. The question is whether these costs will outweigh any benefits. This is a question I have yet to see adequately answered. As Bastiat pointed out we must contend with the seen versus the unseen. Never-the-less, I think the skepticism we see from a certain brand of ecomomists (to whom I am sypathetic) are well founded:
(1) Those who study Public choice and who are familiar with its less complicated aspects (the bootleggers and Baptists sydrome) are naturally skeptical of any crisis; and
(2) No matter how bright anyone is, or how many letters we have after our name, or how much our students nod in agreement (the ultimate test I think), we really are not sure what will happen. For example, as Russ said in a previous post, he does not know if the economy will tank in the next year--people ask me the same thing. All I can ever say is that over the next century, the economy will probably grow between 2-3 percent per annum, and I feel I can say the latter "with authorita!" The Planet is the planet, and a hell of a lot more complicated than the economy or even those who can grasp the most complicated of spontaneous orders.
I just wish those who pooh-pooh "the obvious" or "what is settled" would take a minute understand: (1) the complexities of the Earth (the economy included); and (2) the limits of human intelligence.
Take it as you will, and it may be very wrong (or rolling the dice with doom), but I think, if you wish to think in economic terms (if it be deemed scientific), is to ask questions, and run up the red flag when "those who know best" tell you what to do, when they themselves lack a total understanding of the subject matter. Not that these people are stupid, but smart planners and their smarter computers have proved consistently worng of late. Hayek's knowledge problem has proved a formidable beast to slay.

Posted by: The Albatross | Oct 19, 2007 1:52:24 AM

Jastik, I said "not just about the science". For example, philosophers of science need to be represented at the table in the same proportion as the scientists. And a question they can answer is "what is the historical track record of this field of science in legitimately and accurately predicting future events".

As a citizen, I'd also trust a more market oriented approach than peer reviewed journals, and I would hope that my elected politicians would demand the same. Take data density on hard disks for example, a really tough physics problem. If Western Digital promises to double its density in the next 5 years, and the science that allows them to do it turns out to be bogus or unreliable, they'll pay for it big time in reduced sales, tanked stock price, etc. If climatologists predict that cow flatulence will warm the Earth by 2 degrees over the next 5 decades and we ban beef, and then they turned out to be wrong (as shown in future peer reviewed research), what is the recourse of the disenfranchised carnivore?

Posted by: Brad | Oct 19, 2007 3:57:58 AM

The game of science, and more broadly, the game of rational investigation, is open-ended. The moment that someone pronounces that the debate is over, and that there is no room for further critical discussion, is the moment which they abandon rationality itself.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Oct 19, 2007 6:54:08 AM

The consequences which are deduced from any model are only good as the assumptions of that model. And if it is the assumptions of the model are that which is under critical fire, then to use the deductions from that model as relevent evidence to do nothing more than beg the question.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Oct 19, 2007 7:43:14 AM

Quote from David: "But, while the natural science debate at least is settled in so far that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity, ..."

I'm always amazed at these sorts of statements from scientists. Would we have such wonderful ideas as evolution or relativity or plate tectonics if we ever had a settled scientific debate?

I would suggest that those who support the global warming/climate change/whatever scenario should consider the facts that don't support their claims and consider them as good evidence that their theory is either not complete or not true.

You've made a significant claim of impact on a global scale by a single type of biological organism. Not since bacteria polluted the world with oxygen has there been such an occurrance.

I think that such enormous claims require enormous supporting evidence, not eloborate poorly tested computer simulations based on very limited data over very limited time.

Of course, I use the same types of arguments when discussing religion, and I expect to have as much success here.

Posted by: Keith | Oct 19, 2007 7:44:23 AM

Actually, I take back that last comment. The consequences which are deduced from a model can be better than the assumptions of the model, since it is possible for the consequences to be true even where the assumptions are false. I should have said that the predictive utility of a model is only as good as the assumptions of the model.

This is particularly relevent if we seek to implement policies to avoid some prediction or other, since even where the prediction is true, the false assumptions may lead us to incorrectly attribute causation, and thus render our policies ineffective or counterproductive.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Oct 19, 2007 8:08:46 AM

Incidently, when I wrote "Actually, I take back that last comment." I meant only the first line, "The consequences which are deduced from any model are only good as the assumptions of that model." The remainder of that comment stands.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Oct 19, 2007 8:11:24 AM

Ok, just some comments.

There seem to be a couple of people that don't understand or accept the greenhouse effect at all (diz) or question the validity of the models entirely. Now, note the following: Even those scientists that doubt that mankind is warming the planet have, to my knowledge, never doubted that a) the greenhouse effect is real (if you doubt this effect in general, please point me to ANY scientific study that explains why we have the temperatures we have on earth) and b) that the release of CO2 into the atmosphere will change atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and that this effects temperatures. Lindzen, as the most reputable of the sceptics, believes that there will then be feedbacks that cancel the change out, but in order to buy that argument, you of course have to agree with the existence of the greenhouse gas effect AND with the general validity of the climate models. You then argue that these models are missing or misrepresent a process that will kick in when the human initiated change of atmospheric gases happens, but with that you have already accepted a huge, huge, huge amount of scientific theory. Now, there are a couple of people that have such a position, but they have nothing at all to do with those voices I read above that in general doubt that CO2 emissions will change anything or that the whole scientific body of theories is crap.

On the funding: I don't know. Most of them are in the prime of their career, sit on tenured positions and it is my impression that they are not playing a game. Also note that the economics here are a bit more subtle: If you are a very well established scientist in this field (i.e. someone who cannot be labled lunatic and outside), you will land a BIG hit if you could show that this whole thing is a swindle. The incentive for someone who has tenure that publish something like that is huge, because this will make him the centre of scientific debate. And yet, it doesn't happen. I am not convinced that the economics of this are so clearly that people would shy away from publishing things that are wrong with the models. Oh, and by the way, anyone who ever reads the journals will find lots and lots and lots of discussion of uncertainties, problems and what you have.

About the point that financial models are bad: Yes, they model humans. That is quite tricky, and I have never said that the economics of climate change are easy. But we are talking about physics here, right? There are lots of domains in phyisc, that are well understood. Airplanes fly, right? Also, physisists have a VERY different attitude towards uncertainty and model errors than for example economists: My impression is that they treat them with more care, are more aware about them and just do so much sensitivity analysis on that. Very different culture from economists (or maybe mathematicians?).

@Mesa: Can you do me a favor and read a bit what current models do? They look at all sorts of CO2 concentrations, the most common a factor of two of preindustrial concentrations (not 4-6 times). Also, the General Circulation Models don't assume a certain relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature, instead that is the question they ask, i.e. they calculate how temperature changes with a given CO2 concentration. This is all pretty basic...

On testing: It is just not true that these models are not subject to testing. They are tested with all sorts of historical data (i.e. you build the model with one data set, hand it over to another group and they test it with data from a different time period or source). The large models are routinly tested by a different group of scientists than those that build it, and your comment simply shows that you don't know how these scientists operate. Also, you can easily get access to methods, results, data and what you have of all these models. There is no secrecy here. And yes, I know about the Mann case. Can we please not discuss the work of a couple of thousand scientists by referring to the bad behaviour of one? Thank you.

@Albatros: I very much resonate with you. The economics of this are super super complicated and not settled at all. The behaviour of humans, not that of the atmosphere, is the really complicated question here.

@Keith: I have not claimed that all scientific debate is over. But the advance of relativity theory did really improve your ability of predicting of what happens when you throw a stone over what theory was present before. Very, very often new scientific theories do not invalidate all of the conclusions that the previous theory came up with. So, just because we will find better science in the future to deal with global warming, we should not conclude that everything current science finds is wrong.

@Lee: Well, Uncle Milton would disagree, I guess... I cannot even imagine any scientific theory where the assumptions are more off than economics, and yet I find it an enormously helpful and insightful tool :)

Posted by: David | Oct 19, 2007 9:04:49 AM

There seem to be a couple of people that don't understand or accept the greenhouse effect at all (diz)

Perhaps you could explain it for us then.

Why does increased concentration of CO2 raise the temperature of the atmosphere?

Posted by: diz | Oct 19, 2007 9:17:19 AM

Models are not even needed to understand what is happening.

First,

It's clear the globe is warming. Glaciers on ever continent are receding rapidly and the Arctic sea ice retreat furthers this obvious claim. One such as a mountaineers as myself can see this melting first hand or one can look at pictures that show this obvious trend.

Second,

The question is how warm is this period. The answer seems likely warmer then it has been in at least 4-5,000 years. From beneath the melting glaciers much buried plant material is seeing its first the light of day in over 4- 5,000 years because it's not been warm enough until now to unlock it from the ice. And the ice continues to recede rapidly.

Third,

What's the main thing that is different. CO2 levels, a heat trapping gas , are higher then they have been in over 400,000 years.

Forth,

Will this impact civilization? Climate change, of much less degree, has always been a huge factor in civilization. This climate change looks like it will be greater then any civilization has ever seen.

The uncertainty is in it's effect and in our ability to adapt. Included in the uncertainty is that things could be WORSE then predicted and thus IMO the reason to respond.

Fifth,

Will our response be costly, 300 trillion dollars? THAT"S the scare tactic part coming from those with threatened economic ideologies. Far more irrational scare then anything Al Gore is pushing. Responding by advancing renewable energy technologies will be a boom to the economy and will likely create more independence from outside energy sources such as the middle east and might even create greater individual independence where consumers can generate their own energy with out the need for huge utility and extraction industries.

Seems pretty straight forward to me but then again I don't have any economic ideology on the line. The science on economics is pretty well settled as well. Free markets don't exist, attempts to force them repeatedly result in severe economic inequities that subsequently result in regulated pluralistic economies. The lack of any existing liberal society and the success of the 40+ pluralistic societies is the first hand evidence that is all you need on the issue.

Finally, the correlation between belief in unregulated free markets and dis-belief in anthropogenic climate change are obviously linked because the two are mutually necessary beliefs because the former can not be so if the later is false. And the conflicting results of climate change and an economic ideology clearly reveal another interesting result in another filed of science. That would be clinical psychology and the occurrence of a form of cognitive dissonance that allows one to believe that John Stossal will some how resolve your issues.

Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 19, 2007 9:27:50 AM

Well, Uncle Milton would disagree, I guess... I cannot even imagine any scientific theory where the assumptions are more off than economics, and yet I find it an enormously helpful and insightful tool :)

I did not mean to imply that a model which makes simplifying assumptions cannot be insightful, or even useful when trying to explain events. In fact, I would hope Friedman would have agreed with me in saying:

"The predictive utility of a model is only as good as the assumptions of the model... [and] this is particularly relevent if we seek to implement policies to avoid some prediction or other, since even where the prediction is true, a false assumptions may lead us to incorrectly attribute causation, and thus render our policies ineffective or counterproductive."

This even applies to economic theory and the models of economists, and is precisely why not even economists should "run the country", a position which people like muirgeo, so often, and mistakenly, attribute to libertarians and other champions of free enterprise.

Regards,
Lee

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Oct 19, 2007 10:02:11 AM

There are countless explanations for why brown eggs are more expensive than white eggs, why average wage rates are decreasing, or why people in Topeka, Kansas are more polite than people are in New York. To use but three examples seen recently here on CafeHayek and EconTalk.

There are also countless of these explanations which are consistent with basic economics, and so if we desire to engineer society to a particular end, such as to change the price of brown eggs, to increase or equalise wages, or to change the politeness of New Yorkers, we will find ourselves in a difficult position.

For each possible explanation, a different cause it given, and therefore different consequences derivable. It is also very difficult to simply eliminate all the mistaken explanations, since such investigation would be too costly and time consuming, and for every new piece of evidence uncovered to eliminate a rival explanation, new and hitherto unseen explanations will become available.

Moreover, it is also possible that none of the explanations on the table are correct, as there is no way to confirm, validate, or verify that we have arrived the correct explanation.

The problem is that the correct policy to engineer society toward a goal, whether it be increasing average wages, lowering the price of brown eggs, or making people more polite, is different relative to each possible explanation, and if we choose a false explanation, then there is no telling what the consequences of a policy will be.

It is a conceit of the greatest and most dangerous magnitude, that we can simply prescribe treatments for society, because it far too complex to be comprehended or understood by any individual. If it were not for the fact that this conceit can have damaging consequences for millions of people, perhaps it would not be so objectionable.

The central insight of economics is not how to engineer society, but how we can't engineer society. Now, apply the above logic to the global warming debate.

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Oct 19, 2007 10:41:53 AM

@diz: VERY rough, it works like this. The sun radiates energy at short wavelenghts (i.e. light) to earth. Some of that reaches earth, which absorbes it. Earth then radiates some of that back into space, at longer wavelenghts (think heat). CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs these long wavelengths and radiates some of it back, i.e. it "traps" the heat. Just like it happens in a greenhouse. Increased CO2 concentrations do more of that. The greenhouse gas effect does not happen to the incoming radiation from the sun, but to the outgoing radiation from the earth.

There is a FAQ with the latest IPCC report, which you can get from here. Have a look, things are described in more detail there. And if you want the full picture, read the rest of the information there, it is top notch quality, in particular working group I of the IPCC.

Posted by: David | Oct 19, 2007 11:17:47 AM

I tried to post this here but my skills are inadequate to the task.
--------------------------------------

Houston Chronicle Friday Dec. 18, 1998

STUDY: EL NINO CAUSES RAIN FORESTS TO RELEASE CARBON, NOT CONSUME IT.

____________________________
By Joseph B. Verrengia
Associate press
____________________________

Instead of inhaling extra carbon dioxide, Brazil's rain forest does the opposite in an El Nino year, exhaling millions of tons of the heat-trapping gas and "potentially adding to global warming"(quotes mine), scientists say.

The rain forest, under normal conditions, acts as the 'lungs' of the planet. Its dense canopy of trees stretches for thousands of miles, releasing oxygen and absorbing as much as 700 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.

But when global climate conditions are scambled by El Nino and the rain forest becomes parched, scientsts from the Woods Hole Research Labratory in Massachusetts determined that the Amazon Basin produces as much as 200 million tons of excess carbor dioxide a year.
-------------------------------------

The above, gentlemen, is the first three paragraphs of the article I clipped and saved from the Houston Chronicle back in 1998.

My computer skills are not up to the challenge of posting the scanned article to a website, but I have it saved in an e-mail folder. If anyone should want to read the entire article (and have the skills to make it available to everyone via a website), just e-mail me and I can reply to you with the scanned article attached as a PDF file.

Now that being said, there are some things I'd like to point out.

Notice in the first paragraph the words I enclosed in quotes use the word "potentially" in reference to the thought that this action by the rain forest is adding to the global warming scenario? "Potentially"?

Notice that when the envirowhackos refer to the carbon dioxide produced by man's activities those activities are never mentioned as "potentially" causing, but always is expressed as a definite.

The next thing I'd like to point out is that the article states that under normal conditions the rain forest consumes 700 million tons of carbon dioxide, but in the El Nino produces 200 million tons of "excess" carbon dioxide. The article doesn't make clear what is meant by "excess", one has to read carefully to understand that it means in excess of the 700 millions tons of carbon dioxide that IS NOT being consumed. What does 700 plus 200 equal? That's right 900 million tons of of carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere during the El Nino years not because of mankind but because of nature doing her thing.

Outside of this one time printing it is, to my sure and certain knowledge, information and documentation of the vagrancies of nature that has been buried and never mentioned again in any context by anyone in a public posting or discussion.

Now, my little history of this tidbit of startling knowledge. It was printed on 12/18/98. I went to the Woods Hole website and to the website of Nature and both sites had articles posted confirming what the Chronicle had printed.

Within two years my computer skills were inadequate to research either the Woods Hole or Nature site and bring up reference to this. I did once find an oblique reference to it once, three years on, on an unrelated website that I did not document.

El Ninos occur on a regular basis and last anywhere from one year to several years. For each year they last the Amazon Basin rain forest becomes a world polluter of carbon dioxide in astounding quantities.

E-mail me if you would like to receive the PDF file.

Posted by: vidyohs | Oct 19, 2007 11:49:06 AM

muirduck,

It is as I have said before on a previous topic; intellectual, educated, and thoughtful villagers gather and talk about a subject.....and along comes the village idiot to insert his mindless mumblings into the discussion.

-----------------------------------------
"I always wonder why do economist NOT want global warming to be true. Actually I don't wonder that any more. The reason people like the professors here don't want global warming to be true is glaringly clear. I just wonder if they've ever thought to ask themselves that question. That is, hav ethey asked themselves, " Why is it...that against all scientific consensus I don't want global warming to be true?"
-----------------------------------

Get over the idea, your mommy gave you, that you are smart and have something worthwhile to add.

Only the village idiot would come to a blog created by economist PHDs to specifically introduce thoughts and observations, and invite comments, on the workings of our nation and the world, and think he was going to find topics addressed in any other way than in the realm of economics!!!!!!!!!

Only the village idiot would read anything written by the blog's creators and make the leap that they "want" global warming to be a lie.

Want is an emotion, a desire, and is rarely rational. Emotion in the place of reason is the sole province of the faithful evangelicals of the Socialist Church, specifically the village idiots of the world.

From the high point of stupidity contained in the extracted quote of your writing above everything else you've have written descends into typical muirduck blather.

Posted by: vidyohs | Oct 19, 2007 12:06:56 PM

The central insight of economics is not how to engineer society, but how we can't engineer society. Now, apply the above logic to the global warming debate.

Posted by: Lee Kelly

Lee that's complete boloney on so many levels. It's an empty shell of an oft repeated statement that is meaningless against all the facts that surround us. All one has to do is look at the terrible condition of the middle class American during the Gilded Age, their vast improvement post FDR and now it's steady erosion post Reagan.

POLICY DOES MATTER! Likewise their is every reason to think the climates response will be somewhat proportionate to our future carbon emission which will likewise be policy related.

Your advocating the fatalism of a pre-renaissance society. We are way past that Lee. We control our destiny...there's no invisible hand.

Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 19, 2007 1:22:28 PM

muirgeo,

Unfortunately, policy does matter, since no doubt people like you will continue to try and control our destiny, whether I like it or not.

I would respond to the rest of your comment, but it is not worth my time. It exemplifies the sheer conceit which was the target of my previous comment. I almost suspect that you are trying to be ironic in your response, but more likely the point has once more slipped past you without a whiff of comprehension.

Regards,
Lee

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Oct 19, 2007 2:18:07 PM

Yes, well perhaps in my attempt to simplify things perhaps I oversimplified a little, but you haven't really done anything to rebut the substantive part of what I said.

CO2 absorbs only certain frequencies of radiation.

Since those energy at those frequencies can only be absorbed once, each additional unit of CO2 has a lower marginal effect on warming than the last.

The estimated total possible amount of warming from the complete absorption of the frequencies CO2 is capable of absorbing is about 1 degree centigrade.

Furthermore, according to scientific estimates, the amount of CO2 in the air we have now is sufficent to absorb 50% of the total energy it is ever possible for CO2 to absorb.

Now, did I say anything that is not an accurate representation of science?

Posted by: diz | Oct 19, 2007 2:23:59 PM

"What's the main thing that is different. CO2 levels, a heat trapping gas , are higher then they have been in over 400,000 years."

Is that the main thing?
How about solar magnetic flux?
Gamma ray penetration?

Geohistoric data indicate that warming precedes CO2 increase. This is due to oceanic outgassing. Water gives up gas when it warms.

IAC, the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 is miniscule compared to natural sources.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Oct 19, 2007 2:32:34 PM

David
Lindzen, as the most reputable of the sceptics, believes that there will then be feedbacks that cancel the change out, but in order to buy that argument, you of course have to agree with the existence of the greenhouse gas effect.
----------------------------------
The physics of the doubling of co2 will give you 1C with out feed backs. Lindzen believes that positive feedbacks and negative feedbacks will many cancel each other out. It is is the doom and gloom group that believes that there are positive feedbacks that cause more warming than the original forcing.

David
There is no secrecy here. And yes, I know about the Mann case. Can we please not discuss the work of a couple of thousand scientists by referring to the bad behavior of one? Thank you.
--------------------------
Thats the largest problem I have with the theory of global warming it takes a couple of thousand scientists to be right, yet it only takes one scientist to prove the whole theory wrong. If the feedback is wrong than all those other parts crumple.

If there is high sensitivity like the ippc reports we should have seen temperature rise 1.1C-3.275C. That means .4C-2.6C are being hidden. This suggests that high sensitivity is very unlikely.

Posted by: andrew H | Oct 19, 2007 2:33:47 PM

China and India WILL develop, like it or not. They WILL not wear a hair shirt.

If technologists develop energy technologies that are as economical as coal, China and India will adopt them, as will the US, and the problem will be solved. If not, China and India will burn their abundant coal, the rest of the world won't be able or willing to stop them, and the problem will not be solved.

Bashing the US is irrelevant over a multi-decade time scale.

-dk

Posted by: Dick King | Oct 19, 2007 5:10:09 PM

Just to wrap this up...

I'm more than happy to point to the work of "good" scientists. Having worked in labs myself, I'm familiar with the process, though in unrelated biomedical areas. And I know what kinds of tricks and manipulation can occur, though I didn't personally witness any in projects I was involved in.

The point with Al Gore in specific, and global warming in general, is that so much good science is obscured by the bad behavior of many scientists (and one non-scientist), not just one single person or event. Throw in absurd and false claims like "overwhelming global consensus" and "the debate is over," and the entire movement becomes a global jedi mind trick - nothing to see here, move along. And they want to base public policy on this nonsense, which is incredibly dangerous and will have enormous negative economic ramifications.

There’s just so much about this movement that doesn’t add up, until you approach it as though someone’s hiding something.

How do you explain Michael Mann’s bizarre behavior surrounding his “hockey stick?”

How do you explain the fact that Al Gore refuses to debate anyone on this issue?

How do you explain the fact that James Hanson, one of the pioneers of global warming temperature data sets, refused until very recently to release his temperature data transformation methodologies?

How do you explain the fact that NASA’s GISS dataset was recently revised down suddenly, after those methodologies were released?

How do you explain the secretive nature of observation stations used in temperature measurements?

There are multiple false statements in Gore's movie about polar bears, and Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets melting, and many others that have been not only accepted, but repeated by the press and others. The defense appears to be "Well, it's fake, but true." That's not science.

Global warming skeptic researchers are also attacked. This ridiculous criticism that "they're funded by oil companies" is just that - ridiculous. That's like saying "Einstein's work isn't relevant, because he was left-handed." That's preposterous. You cannot reject scientific plausibility based solely on who is funding the research. That's a fallacy, particularly when these same people refuse to acknowledge they are functioning from a different bias: they need to preserve their research funding, so literally "the worse, the better."

The fact that there are scientists running around saying such things further detracts from what appears to be a political movement masquerading as science.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Oct 19, 2007 6:44:47 PM

Source note:

I’ve “borrowed” (stolen) much of my postings on this topic from here:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

An outstanding roundup of the skeptic’s viewpoint, as well as nearly all related science in this field is available here:

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/
2007/09/table-of-conten.html

[I do have a math & science background, but most of it is easily accessible – well worth a read.]

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Oct 19, 2007 6:54:09 PM

About the point that financial models are bad: Yes, they model humans. That is quite tricky, and I have never said that the economics of climate change are easy. - David

No. First of all, financial models are not bad. They are merely statistical models that guess at the future by extrapolating historically observed relationships. Secondly, financial models don't model people. The mathematical models that a lot of black box systems (and also non-black box systems) rely on are established, observed and agreed-upon mathematical relationships. In this way, they are not different from physics models and may be why so many of our Ph.D's happen to be physicists, not mathematicians. In many ways, modern financial theory is very similar to physics. Although, I claim no special knowledge in that department I've just observed that most of the quants we work with have doctorates in physics. In any case, our statistical models do not in any way try to model human behaviour.

Airplanes fly, right? Also, physisists have a VERY different attitude towards uncertainty and model errors than for example economists: My impression is that they treat them with more care, are more aware about them and just do so much sensitivity analysis on that. Very different culture from economists (or maybe mathematicians?). - David

Yes, but airplanes also fell out of the sky with alarming frequency in the beginning because the scientists' models predicted certain things poorly. Flying the planes served as a test and with each failure they learned and adjusted their models. This kind of testing is just not possible with climate models because the time range is so long. Incidentally, that's another problem - the longer the time horizon, the more susceptible the model is to error.

Our statistical models are handled with extreme care. Our attention to detail and sensitivity analysis is very high. At least on par with the scientists you describe. Why? Well, we quite literally have billions of dollars on the line if we're wrong.

I am not an economist. I'm a trader. However, I think I need to correct your impression about the care with which economists approach their models. You may have the impression that since economic models have such difficulty predicting human behaviour that economists aren't careful in their modeling. This is not the case. The problem is that economists often have to apply the mathematical tools of modeling to the many complicated and often qualitative variables of human behaviour. Mathematical models deal poorly with predicting things like cultural norms, attitudes, individual preferences, etc. You begin to see the problem.

But we don't model things (human behaviour) in statistical models we use for trading. Yet, the models still fail to predict with enough accuracy enough for me not to use my judgment when putting on a trade. A human mind is more flexible than a model.

The difference between my judgment in trading and global warming solutions is that my trading is flexible and I can change my mind quickly. If in 20 years the climate scientists find a flaw in their model, it's going to be pretty hard for them to say "Oh, wait! Never mind, forget everything we said. We need to do THIS instead." after we've been forced by government to pour trillions of dollars into some anti-warming scheme or other based on their original predicitons. And we do need to entertain the very idea that the scientists may actually be wrong about the future. They were about the "coming" ice age, apparently.

Posted by: Methinks | Oct 19, 2007 9:50:16 PM

Russel Roberts
Don Boudreaux,

Com'on guys, time to fess up. I accuse you two of creating this entity posting as "muirgeo" just to stimulate comments and reactions.

Even as far fetched as this accusation is, it is more reasonable than for us to believe that any one human being can be this stupid:
--------------------------------------
"Your advocating the fatalism of a pre-renaissance society. We are way past that Lee. We control our destiny...there's no invisible hand."
Posted by: muirgeo | Oct 19, 2007 1:22:28 PM"
-------------------------------------
It can't write, it can't think, it is ignorant beyond belief, totally incapable of logic and rationale, capable of contradicting itself in one sentence, and always wrong.

You had to have created it, nothing else makes sense. Game's over guys. You have a thriving blog now and you have no need of a construct like muirgeo. There are enough actual real people here that have diverse educations, thoughts, and opinions so that an idiot construct is not needed any more.

Thank you very much, it has been fun; but, grows tiresome.

Posted by: vidyohs | Oct 19, 2007 9:57:42 PM

Just watched Stossel’s piece. Pretty good, but he didn’t really say anything that wasn’t said on this thread.

There is no “global consensus,” not in the terms being used by Gore, and even the IPCC. Their use of the term implies forceful unanimity, which is probably what they’re getting by silencing debate (and programming kids).

This doesn’t pass the laugh test, much less scientific muster.

Posted by: Mesa Econoguy | Oct 19, 2007 10:50:39 PM

"Again, none of the natural scientists I know would claim that they could a) evaluate how much of climate change should be prevented nor b) how it should be done. Those are economic questions, and if you just have a brief look at the literature, THAT is where the real debate is going on right now."

I'd argue that the biggest problem is not even economic, but political. How do you get every CO2 and Methane producing country in the world to buy into a carbon tax, emission trading, or even emission capping when they may have citizens making under $1 per day (on the edge of starvation) or some citizens making $10,000 per day (who can build their own breakwater if the seas rise)?

Can we truly end global government corruption to achieve CO2/Methane limits?

I must admit there is a simple answer to reducing CO2 emissions from oil - bomb oil wells and production infrastructure, which will drive the price of oil way above that of less-polluting alternatives.

Coal is a tougher challenge, it sits in underground "hardened bunkers". Oh wait, we could use those bunker busting nukes to contaminate the mines!

I only joke about those two scenarios. Yet if a country went climate-change mad enough, it just might happen.

Posted by: Mr. Econotarian | Oct 19, 2007 11:46:45 PM

Does the global warming theory fundamentally threaten economists' free market views...as one previous commentator suggested?

It's possible but there is another dimension. Global Warming can hardly be considered a "market failure" if the global atmosphere is a commons. So it's just another example of the "tragedy of the commons". Historically in economics the solution to "commons failures" has been either wholesale privatisation or implementation of a stronger central management domain over the 'commons' (in effect making it less 'common').

Posted by: Tim | Oct 20, 2007 6:47:02 AM

"It's clear the globe is warming. Glaciers on ever continent are receding rapidly and the Arctic sea ice retreat furthers this obvious claim. One such as a mountaineers as myself can see this melting first hand or one can look at pictures that show this obvious trend."

See Muirgo, here's the problem of just looking at the things that you want to, you end up coming to conclusions that you like.. It isn't "clear" at all that the globe is warming. It isn't even clear that the arctic is warming. Warmer sea currents and soot from hundreds of years of coal burning look to be the main reasons that the arctic sea ice is melting. If the globe is warming, why isn't Antarctica warming or even having ice melts?

I have no problem with the concept that man has altered the climate, but I have seen zero evidence that the cause is due to Co2, that the effects are the same all over the world, or that anyone really has any idea of what the consequences are. The idea that there is one driving force behind climate change is laughable, and totally insupportable by the available evidence. If Co2 is the driving force, why isn't the southern hemisphere showing it? There has not been, and there isn't any evidence of a "global" effect of the incredibly varied manifestations of climate change seen (or not) from region to region. If you want to argue that man is changing things in certain places, fine, but if you want me to believe that the entire earth is in danger, you need to show me the evidence before I think spending the immense amount of money it would require to "fix" things is a good idea. This means making sure your temperature stations are giving you accurate readings (which is not clear in the US, let alone in the rest of the world), that the temperature proxies that are used for figuring out historical temperatures are accurate (it doesn't look like the bristle cone pine proxies are holding up), and that the statistical methods used to figure out the trends are open and transparent.

The idea that we should spend the money "just in case" doesn't fly. It will take an incredible amount of money to "fix" things and that has a known consequence, and it isn't good and WILL be global. It isn't clear that the world would be worse off if it were hotter IF the doomsday predictions are true. There is still too much up in the air to commit that much money and resources...

Isaac Crawford
Blogging in Yemen
www.isaharr.com

Posted by: Isaac Crawford | Oct 20, 2007 8:44:12 AM