Macroeconomics & Climate Models

[August1991]

I am putting this thread topic here in part because this category is hidden from view. Who will notice it? Only those who are interested.

----

The recent East Anglia CRU email/code scandal has attracted attention. Scientists (as well as ordinary people) complain that "science" has been corrupted by politics. The study of global warming, or climate change, have fallen victim to politics. Then again, climate scientists feel obliged to take their results to politicians to use their findings.

If you were an engineer and you knew that icebergs endangered a speeding Titanic, would you be wrong to call attention to this? As an engineer, if the politicians don't pay attention, are you wrong to seek public opinion?

Welcome to the world of a macroeconomist.

----

Macroeconomists, and climatologists, work with imperfect models. The data is just not clear since the signal-to-noise ratio is high.

Macroeconomists, and climatologists, argue about their theories, and models.

Both macroeconomists and climatologists must develop their models under the scrutiny of laymen experts, where everyone is an expert with an opinion. (Everyone talks about weather and interest rates.)

Climatologists and macroeconomist have to contend with models where their theories, made public, may change the behaviour of the people. This changes their model.

Critically, both macroeconomists and climatologists work in a world where their models can make some people richer, and others poorer.

In short, I am surprised that no one has drawn the comparison between macroeconomists and climatologists.

Edited December 4, 2009 by August1991

[myata]

Welcome to MLW - the world's new & ripe with ideas expert forum on macro economics and climate models!

[Shady]

Welcome to MLW - the world's new & ripe with ideas expert forum on macro economics and climate models!

In otherwords, August, take your dissenting views elsewhere. They're not welcome here. You shouldn't be expressing them, because you're not an "expert."

Funny how these people never apply this rule to themselves, when say, posting on the war in Afghanistan. Apparently you don't need to be a military or foreign policy expert to comment on those things.

[Riverwind]

In otherwords, August, take your dissenting views elsewhere. They're not welcome here. You shouldn't be expressing them, because you're not an "expert."

Myata spent a lot of lecturing people how the only people who can be trusted on climate science are certified "climate experts" and he refused to even read skeptical opinions.

I find it interesting that he has not commented on CimateGate - the fiasco that proves the so called "climate experts" are academic thugs who systematically sought to hide their data from critics and to suppress research that did not fit the IPCC political agenda. More importantly, it proves that the sceptics he refuse to listen to were right all along.

[Pliny]

I have been preoccupied with the other thread so just noticed this one. Economics is one of my interests.

What is macro-economics,August?

We know the the climate models are...well.. models. Macro-economics is what most economists concern themselves with these days, I believe. It has to do with managing the economy. Let's face it you can't micro-manage the economy.

Macro-economics has more to do with management of the economy on a national, and of late - global, level. When macro-managing the economy you are obviously talking about engineering it. Governments are the only one's that do this. The various tools they have are, control of the money supply, credit policy, interest rate policy, and a few others. Only governemtn can set these policies.

Keynesianism is a form of economics that promotes macro-managing the economy and is the general economic theory used by most countries. Keynes himself stated his theory was more suited to a totalitarian form of government than a democratic one. I don't know if he was attempting to gain favour from Hitler or what but this was his introductory statement in the German edition in 1936.

Macro managing an economy is someone's pipe dream and not suited to the common interest.

[Shwa]

So I have to ask August1991, what are the models of the macro-theorists made of? That is, where does the data come from for them to create their models?

[eyeball]

In short, I am surprised that no one has drawn the comparison between macroeconomists and climatologists.

I routinely draw the comparison whenever I point out how unbalanced the level of scepticism appears to be that is considered when making or not making the policies that flow out of the data sets that these sciences use. Is there any basis for not believing that economists are every bit as likely to fudge and adjust their data to give the appearance of consensus and to thwart their sceptics? I can only imagine the emails that wing there way between these.

Has anyone else noticed that there are never any riots or crowds of sceptics being tear gassed by police at international conferences of climatologists like you see at similar international conferences of economists? Again, the balance seems little off.

And how unbalanced or clean is political science? But I guess calling politics a science is like equating chiropractics to brain surgeons. I wonder how much extra a political scientist charges for a happy summary?

Edited December 6, 2009 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

Has anyone else noticed that there are never any riots or crowds of sceptics being tear gassed by police at international conferences of climatologists like you see at similar international conferences of economists? Again, the balance seems little off.

I think that climate science is at the crest of a wave of change, wherein the internet carries populism back into other disciplines, so it is special. As for economists, nobody really understands anything about what they do anyway.

The only way we've really changed by listening to them lately has been 'globalization of trade' and that has achieved its goals, so no riots.

[eyeball]

I think that climate science is at the crest of a wave of change, wherein the internet carries populism back into other disciplines, so it is special. As for economists, nobody really understands anything about what they do anyway.

And yet we're willing to trust them with the very well-being of the planet.

The only way we've really changed by listening to them lately has been 'globalization of trade' and that has achieved its goals, so no riots.

I suspect if you tried to take a truck load of 2x4's and just drive on into the U.S. tomorrow to sell them you'd feel differently.

[Michael Hardner]

And yet we're willing to trust them with the very well-being of the planet.

I don't think people realize their role in advising politicans.

I suspect if you tried to take a truck load of 2x4's and just drive on into the U.S. tomorrow to sell them you'd feel differently.

Likewise, if I tried to set up a Canadian FOX or CBS affiliate, but why talk in absolutes ? Go back 25 years and you will see the change.

[Wilber]

And yet we're willing to trust them with the very well-being of the planet.

I suspect if you tried to take a truck load of 2x4's and just drive on into the U.S. tomorrow to sell them you'd feel differently.

My problem is that these people have no business plan, no clue as to what it will cost or how it will effect the economies of the countries who are expected to pay the bills. They are asking developed countries to bankrupt themselves so they can shovel money to countries they have to compete with in world markets, so that those countries can emit more. Some of the worst poluting countries in the world. Not to mention tin pot dictators who could care less about the environment They really have no other plan than a redistribution of wealth.

If we are to engage in projects in other countries to offset our emissions, it must be done using Canadian companies under Canadian oversight or not at all.

[eyeball]

My problem is that these people have no business plan, no clue as to what it will cost or how it will effect the economies of the countries who are expected to pay the bills. They are asking developed countries to bankrupt themselves so they can shovel money to countries they have to compete with in world markets, so that those countries can emit more. Some of the worst poluting countries in the world. Not to mention tin pot dictators who could care less about the environment They really have no other plan than a redistribution of wealth.

Economic alarmists have no environmental plan, no clue as to what the affect of the environments degradation might cost or how this could affect the societies that are expected to make a living in it and pay the bills etc. They seem utterly and completely oblivious to the need to pace economic growth to the capacity of the world to provide the natural capital that sustains that growth.

If we are to engage in projects in other countries to offset our emissions, it must be done using Canadian companies under Canadian oversight or not at all.

Well there certainly has to be a hell of a lot more oversight all right. If you've been followed any of my exchanges on the subject of monitoring with Michael you'll know what I think needs doing.

[Michael Hardner]

My problem is that these people have no business plan, no clue as to what it will cost or how it will effect the economies of the countries who are expected to pay the bills. They are asking developed countries to bankrupt themselves so they can shovel money to countries they have to compete with in world markets, so that those countries can emit more. Some of the worst poluting countries in the world. Not to mention tin pot dictators who could care less about the environment They really have no other plan than a redistribution of wealth.

I've read this before, and I don't understand it. Isn't the point to cut carbon and other emissions ? How is that wealth distribution ? Can we have a cite ?

[Riverwind]

Isn't the point to cut carbon and other emissions?

You can make any promise you want but without a technically and economically feasible plan to get there your promises mean squat. That is what Wilber means by a 'business plan'. In the current political environment governments are being pushed to make reduction promises that cannot possibly be achieved within the timeframes demanded.

However, the activists are not stupid and that is why the proposed treaty allows countries to carbon credits from developing countries instead of reducing emissions. These 'carbon credits' are supposed to pay for emission reductions that would not have happened without the money from the developed world. i.e. if the Chinese put up a wind turbine then they can sell the CO2 credits to Germany if the Chinese can show that they would not have built the turbine without the German money.

It should be pretty obvious that such a system is easy to abuse and that the participants have no incentive to play by the rules (i.e. China benefits by lying about whether it would have built the turbines anyways and Germany benefits because fraud lowers the prices of the CO2 credits they are required to purchase). Google "Clean Development Mechanism Fraud" to get examples of how this system is already being abused.

In short, the demands to force rich countries into making emission cut promises that cannot be kept and an easy-to-manipulate system that allows rich countries to buy their way out of their promises adds up to a scheme for a massive transfer money from rich countries to poor. That I why I would vehemently oppose any international treaty even if I believed that CO2 was a real danger.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

You can make any promise you want but without a technically and economically feasible plan to get there your promises mean squat. That is what Wilber means by a 'business plan'. In the current political environment governments are being pushed to make reduction promises that cannot possibly be achieved within the timeframes demanded.

However, the activists are not stupid and that is why the proposed treaty allows countries to carbon credits from developing countries instead of reducing emissions. These 'carbon credits' are supposed to pay for emission reductions that would not have happened without the money from the developed world. i.e. if the Chinese put up a wind turbine then they can sell the CO2 credits to Germany if the Chinese can show that they would not have built the turbine without the German money.

It should be pretty obvious that such a system is easy to abuse and that the participants have no incentive to play by the rules (i.e. China benefits by lying about whether it would have built the turbines anyways and Germany benefits because fraud lowers the prices of the CO2 credits they are required to purchase). Google "Clean Development Mechanism Fraud" to get examples of how this system is already being abused.

In short, the demands to force rich countries into making emission cut promises that cannot be kept and an easy-to-manipulate system that allows rich countries to buy their way out of their promises adds up to a scheme for a massive transfer money from rich countries to poor. That I why I would vehemently oppose any international treaty even if I believed that CO2 was a real danger.

So, the concern here seems to be about a system which hasn't been designed yet and - by saying "the activists are not stupid" - is really just rooted in more divisive thinking and paranoia.

How stupid would a system be that allowed CO2 production to continue to increase as well as paying other countries ?

[Riverwind]

How stupid would a system be that allowed CO2 production to continue to increase as well as paying other countries ?

The system already exists thanks to the Kyoto protocol. The problems are NOT hypothetical and people are regularily getting charged for fraud today.

You also have to remember that the system only reduces hypothetical emissions - reducing real emissions is NOT a goal. This means the system allows someone to build an unnecessary HCFC factory in India, install systems to reduce HCFC emissions, sell the credits, pocket the money and close down the factory.

I realize the system sounds absurd - and it is. But 15 years ago people would have laughed if you told them that subprime loans would cause the collapse of the world financial system so it is naive to assume that the people putting these systems in place know what they are doing.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[Michael Hardner]

The system already exists thanks to the Kyoto protocol. The problems are NOT hypothetical and people are regularily getting charged for fraud today.

You also have to remember that the system only reduces hypothetical emissions - reducing real emissions is NOT a goal. This means the system allows someone to build an unnecessary HCFC factory in India, install systems to reduce HCFC emissions, sell the credits, pocket the money and close down the factory.

I realize the system sounds absurd - and it is. But 15 years ago people would have laughed if you told them that subprime loans would cause the collapse of the world financial system so it is naive to assume that the people putting these systems in place know what they are doing.

How is a system that reduces hypothetical emissions supposed to reduce us to 1990 emission levels ? I thought you said activists were not stupid ? Why would they think that such a scheme would work, for even a few years in full public view ?

The system is based on the same system that George W. Bush's government launched that was successful at reducing acid rain emissions, so there's evidence that it's a good idea, and that it gives industry options to hitting targets.

Do you have some examples that illustrates examples of this abuse happening ?

[Riverwind]

How is a system that reduces hypothetical emissions supposed to reduce us to 1990 emission levels?

It can't. But that is the way the system works. Countries that can't reduce emissions buy credits via the clean development mechanism. But these credits are not for real emission cuts - they are only for cuts in hypothetical emissions. The net result is total emissions can continue to rise even if countries meet their treaty obligations.

I said the activists are not stupid because most of them care more about 'social equity' than the environment. That means they don't really care if the system fails to deliver the GHG the reductions provided money is being taken from the rich and given to the poor.

Why would they think that such a scheme would work, for even a few years in full public view ?

They have successfully silenced critics by convincing the media that all paid shills for 'big oil' and should be ignored.

The system is based on the same system that George W. Bush's government launched that was successful at reducing acid rain emissions, so there's evidence that it's a good idea, and that it gives industry options to hitting targets.

There NO comparison with acid rain and CO2 because EVERYONE was forced to reduce SO2 emissions. Under kyoto/copenhagen developing countries have no obligation to reduce emissions which opens the door to incredible abuse and a net increase in emissions.

Do you have some examples that illustrates examples of this abuse happening ?

Try here.

One senior figure suggested there may be faults with up to 20% of the carbon credits - known as certified emissions reductions - already sold. Since these are used by European governments and corporations to justify increases in emissions, the effect is that in some cases malpractice at the CDM has added to the net amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

The system already exists thanks to the Kyoto protocol. The problems are NOT hypothetical and people are regularily getting charged for fraud today.

You also have to remember that the system only reduces hypothetical emissions - reducing real emissions is NOT a goal. This means the system allows someone to build an unnecessary HCFC factory in India, install systems to reduce HCFC emissions, sell the credits, pocket the money and close down the factory.

I realize the system sounds absurd - and it is. But 15 years ago people would have laughed if you told them that subprime loans would cause the collapse of the world financial system so it is naive to assume that the people putting these systems in place know what they are doing.

You're saying the same economists who dreamed up the sup-prime disaster are responsible for the carbon scheme? The same liars who are now getting bonus' on the taxpayer's boob?

Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard place, climatologists on one side and economists on the other. C'mon Riverwind its time to embrace the horror and admit it, you're screwed no matter who you turn to for solutions.

I'm reminded of that cartoon of two fishing buddies with a mushroom cloud rising in the background, "you know what this means" says one, "yeah, no limits" says the other.

Edited December 8, 2009 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

You're saying the same economists who dreamed up the sup-prime disaster are responsible for the carbon scheme?

The subprime problem was caused by governments that set up a system that could be easily abused. The CDM is a failure for the same reason. Governments set up flawed systems because they get pressured by activists and businesses who are only looking to promote their own self interest and could not care less about the rest of society.

[eyeball]

Under kyoto/copenhagen developing countries have no obligation to reduce emissions which opens the door to incredible abuse and a net increase in emissions.

Try here.

From reading this link you provided it appears this scheme was dreamed up by the same sort of people who dreamed up the sup-prime mortgages. At the very least this scheme was dreamed up within the same feverishly deregulated environment that sub-prime mortgages were hatched in so there's the main problem right there.

The board has called for a new regime of surveillance of their work.

Yup...I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Michael Hardner]

The subprime problem was caused by governments that set up a system that could be easily abused. The CDM is a failure for the same reason. Governments set up flawed systems because they get pressured by activists and businesses who are only looking to promote their own self interest and could not care less about the rest of society.

It's a really stupid tactic to drape otherwise convincing arguments in the language of the paranoid. You're not going to convince anyone who is trying to understand the issue by doing so.

It's enough to show what is wrong with the process, or with the data. Objective people can make their minds up based on facts, not on your opinions of the motivations of activists and businesses.

[Riverwind]

From reading this link you provided it appears this scheme was dreamed up by the same sort of people who dreamed up the sub-prime mortgages.

Sub-prime mortgages have two parents who share the blame: bankers and social activists. The bankers were the one who exploited the system for profit but it is the social activitists with their demands for 'equity' that pressured politicians into creating a system that would provide uncreditworthy people with easy access to credit.

IOW - bankers could profit while claiming they were being socially progressive.

Carbon trading 10x worse than sub-prime.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

The subprime problem was caused by governments that set up a system that could be easily abused. The CDM is a failure for the same reason. Governments set up flawed systems because they get pressured by activists and businesses who are only looking to promote their own self interest and could not care less about the rest of society.

I don't doubt it for one minute. We've just seen very same thing with the system that was designed to track what happens to our prisoners of war in Afghanistan. Designed to ensure there would always be lots of holes and an avenue for plausible deniability.

Lets not lose sight of the fact that in the case of sub-prime and CDM failures that there are several revolving doors between industry and government through which scientists and economists come and go. I've seen the same thing in the fishing industry.

We trust anybody who is power at our peril. We deserve to be screwed after putting up with this crap for so long.

[eyeball]

Sub-prime mortgages have two parents who share the blame: bankers and social activists. The bankers were the one who exploited the system for profit but it is the social activitists with their demands for 'equity' that pressured politicians into creating a system that would provide uncreditworthy people with easy access to credit.

IOW - bankers could profit while claiming they were being socially progressive.

Carbon trading 10x worse than sub-prime.

Yes its always the filthy socialists isn't it? They're every where and are entirely responsible for everything that's wrong with everything.

Why aren't we simply rounding them all up and putting them in camps?

Edited December 8, 2009 by eyeball