Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

carrying on in the fine tradition of Simple's favoured denier TV weathermen (John Coleman, Anthony Watts, Joe D'Aleo)... let's not forget Chad Myers! (plus bonus footage of Jay Lehr, senior fellow and science director of the Heartland Institute... it's cooling... it's the SUN! )

[TimG]

first... you drop a blind link to a Richard Toll article... adviser to the skeptic/denier organization, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

So what?

then... you proceed to drop an unsubstantiated quote... that turns out to be from an article written by Jerry Taylor... senior fellow at the well known denier organization, the Cato Institute

Again, so what? Valid arguments are still valid even if you don't like the messenger.

The paper I referenced was a review of peer reviewed literature on the topic. The paper supports the claims I made earlier about how the cost of climate change is likely to be managable and not sufficient to justify the kinds of economically destructive policies which now being advocated the in the name 'preventing climate change'.

Edited July 3, 2010 by TimG

[WIP]

Sorry. This is an example of a very poor understanding of economics. The boom-bust cycle is created by monetary pumping. In a free market without fractional reserve banking no boom bust cycle would occur. I do have a beef with John Maynard Keynes. His theories are more intended to be used in a fascistic society.

We went through this in the recession debates, no sense derailing this thread to argue economics, but I want to say that previously you focused on one cause only, even though there are many other variables in an economic system. And in the long run, I don't think economics should be considered even a quasi-science. Economists are no better than stock analysts at predicting future trends, yet they have reams of excuses every time the system blows up. And your capacity to blame the Bush Recession on government choices, and completely excuse unregulated banks and new derivative markets is a prime example.

It was taking money out of the economy and limiting it's spending to armaments and war materiel not needless, unwanted and preferential social programs and make work projects.

That's conservative ethos in a nutshell! Social programs are unnecessary, wasteful, needless overspending! But you military guys and contractors...just help yourselves to all the gold bars you want! No "pay as you go" when it comes to spending on stuff that blows shit up! Nevertheless, whether it builds guns, tanks, airplanes, or roads and bridges that can actually provide a permanent use, it is still money spent that had been borrowed by bankrupt governments going further in the red....and it provided an economic growth stimulus which ever way you slice it.

Perhaps we should take a look at our education system regarding how children and teenagers do not seem to differentiate between needs and wants and are considered intellectually unable to control themselves and their demands. Adults who have gone through the public education system seem to behave in the same manner.

And maybe we can put restrictions on impulse advertising targeted at children and teenagers! Kids get free credit cards in the mail before they've payed off their college loans, and then they are in debt for life.

If he had read and understood Bastiat's "What is Seen and What is not Seen" he would have realized this. In order for us to work a 20 hour work week our production would have to have doubled. Ultimately, it is our production that provides us our standard of living. Reducing our hours of production must be compensated for by increased productivity. I think it is plain to see that if we halve our production we halve our consumption . If we want to work twenty hours a week we have to still produce what was produced in a forty hour week to maintain our standard of living.

.

Which could have been achieved if consumption didn't start increasing faster than production.

Dinosaur brains were still bigger than ours and if that is all you are considering then your statement is not true.

No, you don't get the point that the valid comparison becomes brain size to body mass. In a very large animal, such as an elephant, much of the added brain size is needed to manage the functions of a larger body. The only caution I would put on primate brain size (including ours) is that our brain's are constructed in three major component systems that began with a reptilian brain, old mammalian brain, and the large higher cortex level. Our three level brain could be a lot more efficient if evolution had replaced all of the older systems, rather than cobbling them together with existing parts. I just wanted to mention this because African grey parrots are probably very close to primates in intelligence despite having much smaller brain sizes. The parrot's brain is a more efficient unitary system than our own, and the only complete analysis of a parrot was done by a Dr. Irene Pepperberg on her grey parrot - Alex, and a lot more futher study needs to be done to discover the parrot's full potential.

Now, back to your ant example: an ant's brain is just too damn small to provide the range of connections that would be needed for high level cognitive function. Although Alex the African Grey Parrot does show that the human brain could be scaled down greatly in size if it had a similar design. The problem is that our brain's are so complex and poorly understood, it would take decades and probably centuries to map it out, before making any kind of changes to brain design.

What is collective thinking? Where is the collective brain?

It is something that humans are not very good at! Although our circle of concern has expanded since hunter/gatherer days, when everyone outside of the family tribe was an enemy and could be dispatched without a care. Religion and political institutions have expanded our consideration of people that we have no direct connections with, but expanding the circle of concern to everyone....and I mean beyond the rhetorical statements of some religious claims....that may come in time, but the reactionary forces fighting selfishly for maintaining their own, or their group's best interests are trying to disparage any semblance of a global ethic.

Whether they call themselves conservatives or libertarians, the message preached from the political right and the religious right is that universalism is against their religion or national interests. If that's how a majority, or even a significant minority of the population view universalism, then we can say goodbye to the human race in a few centuries.

[WIP]

carrying on in the fine tradition of Simple's favoured denier TV weathermen (John Coleman, Anthony Watts, Joe D'Aleo)... let's not forget Chad Myers! (plus bonus footage of Jay Lehr, senior fellow and science director of the Heartland Institute... it's cooling... it's the SUN! )

That shows that a meteorologist is not a climatologist! But what does Lou Dobbs know anyway....now there's a guy who did a disappearing act! This idiot says: we should be more concerned about ocean acidification than global warming!" Doesn't this clown realize that ocean acidification is also being caused by increasing carbon dioxide levels?

Part of the misperceptions come from treating weather as local and unrelated to larger climate cycles. But even a weatherman should notice how many extreme, all time record-breaking storms have hit in the last few years. Storms that were predicted by climate modeling which forecast more extreme weather events as more energy was added to the weather systems.

Extreme heat wave sets all-time high temperature records in Africa and Middle East

A withering heat wave of unprecedented intensity and areal covered has smashed all-time high temperatures in five nations in the Middle East and Africa over the past week. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Chad, Kuwait, and Niger all set new records for their hottest temperatures of all time, and two other Middle East nations came within a degree of their hottest temperatures ever. The heat was the most intense in Kuwait, which recorded its hottest temperature in history on June 15 in Abdaly, according to information I received from the Kuwait Met office. The mercury hit 52.6°C (126.7°F). Kuwait's previous all-time hottest temperature was 51.9°C (125.4°F), on July 27,2007, at Abdaly. Temperatures reached 51°C (123.8°F) in the capital of Kuwait City on June 15, 2010.

Iraq had its hottest day in history on June 14, 2010, when the mercury hit 52.0°C (125.6°F) in Basra. Iraq's previous record was 51.7°C (125.1°F) set August 8, 1937, in Ash Shu'aybah.

It was also incredibly hot in Saudi Arabia, which had its hottest temperature ever on Tuesday (June 22): 52.0°C (125.6°F), measured in Jeddah, the second largest city in Saudi Arabia. The previous record was 51.7°C (125.1°F), at Abqaiq, date unknown. The record heat was accompanied by a sandstorm, which caused eight power plants to go offline, resulting in blackouts to several Saudi cities.

In Africa, Chad had its hottest day in history on Tuesday (June 22), when the temperature reached 47.6°C (117.7°F) at Faya. The previous record was 47.4°C (117.3°F) at Faya on June 3 and June 9, 1961.

Niger tied its record for hottest day in history on Tuesday (June 22), when the temperature reached 47.1°C (116.8°F) at Bilma. That record stood for just one day, as Bilma broke the record again on Wednesday (June 23), when the mercury topped out at 48.2°C (118.8°F). The previous record was 47.1°C on May 24, 1998, also at Bilma.

Two other countries came within a degree of their all time hottest temperature on record during the heat wave. Bahrain had its hottest June temperature ever, 46.9°C, on June 20, missing the all-time record of 47.5°C (117.5°F), set July 14, 2000. Temperatures in Quatar reached 48.8°C (119.8°F) on June 20. Quatar's all-time record hottest temperature was 49.6°C (121.3°F) set on July 9, 2000.

According to Essa Ramadan, a Kuwaiti meteorologist from Civil Aviation, Matrabah, Kuwait smashed this record and had Asia's hottest temperature in history on June 15 this year, when the mercury hit 54.0°C (129.2°F). However, data from this station is notoriously bad, and each year bogus record highs have to be corrected, according to an email I received from weather record researcher Maximiliano Herrera. Asia's hottest temperature in history will very likely remain the 53.5°C (128.3°F) recorded at MohenjuDaro, Pakistan on May 26 this year.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1516

Every time some idiot finds a record cold temperature, they think it disproves global warming....even though record highs outnumber record colds two to one Both can be explained as the expected results of more energy creating more extreme variations in the weather.

And deniers should take a look at what's happening in the rest of the world. Here in Canada, we've actually been pretty lucky compared to most of the world. In Africa and Asia, they have been hitting all-time record breaking high temperatures, which is why the concept of climate reparations has to be taken seriously. Rightwingers want to paint the concept of making those who are wrecking the climate pay for the damage to the most affected areas in the tropics as a welfare money-grab or something. But, the impoverished in Africa are in a similar situation as people who live in slum neighbourhoods next to a factory smokestack.

[Keepitsimple]

Extreme heat wave sets all-time high temperature records in Africa and Middle East

Every time some idiot finds a record cold temperature, they think it disproves global warming....even though record highs outnumber record colds two to one Both can be explained as the expected results of more energy creating more extreme variations in the weather.

Every time some idiot finds a record warm temperature, they think it proves global warming:

Just take a look at when some of those PREVIOUS warm records were set.....40, 50, 100 years ago. And now they are broken by fractions of a degree and it's a sign of impending catastrophe? Better to ask why it was so warm back then. It was the weather, stupid. We all know that the world has been gradually warming for centuries at the rate of about one degree per century, so it stands to reason that the hottest years would be those that are relatively recent.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Pliny]

We went through this in the recession debates, no sense derailing this thread to argue economics, but I want to say that previously you focused on one cause only, even though there are many other variables in an economic system. And in the long run, I don't think economics should be considered even a quasi-science. Economists are no better than stock analysts at predicting future trends, yet they have reams of excuses every time the system blows up. And your capacity to blame the Bush Recession on government choices, and completely excuse unregulated banks and new derivative markets is a prime example.

We will have to leave this here I don't think it belongs on this thread.

Whether they call themselves conservatives or libertarians, the message preached from the political right and the religious right is that universalism is against their religion or national interests. If that's how a majority, or even a significant minority of the population view universalism, then we can say goodbye to the human race in a few centuries.

I think we will be anyway. But probably out of our own choice not due to failure to sustain ourselves.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Pliny

[waldo]

excellent! Thanks for coming out - and now that we've established who your go-to sources are

first... you drop a blind link to a Richard Toll article... adviser to the skeptic/denier organization, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) - Guardian article on the GWPF

then... you proceed to drop an unsubstantiated quote... that turns out to be from an article written by Jerry Taylor... senior fellow at the well known denier organization, the Cato Institute - sourcewatch on the Cato Institute

So what?

Again, so what? Valid arguments are still valid even if you don't like the messenger.

The paper I referenced was a review of peer reviewed literature on the topic. The paper supports the claims I made earlier about how the cost of climate change is likely to be managable and not sufficient to justify the kinds of economically destructive policies which now being advocated the in the name 'preventing climate change'.

so what? Uhhh... understanding the background positions of your two sourced individuals certainly presents their writings in an appropriate context and perspective - hey?

a review of peer reviewed literature on the topic... comprehensive?... all inclusive? Oh, apparently not:

Richard Tol's recent article, "The Economic Effects of Climate Change" (JEP vol. 23, no. 2) presents itself as a comprehensive survey of economic research on climate change, but in fact restricts its coverage to a subset of the economists writing on the subject. As he notes (p.30), most of the work he surveys comes from two groups, one centered at Yale and the other at University College in London; in honor of their most prominent living members, they could be called the Nordhaus and Tol groups, respectively (since David Pearce, the original leader of the London group, is deceased).

What's missing? The Stern Review, a paradigm-shifting new look at the economics of climate change which is now central to global debate on climate policy, gets barely a mention. The AEA invited Nicholas Stern to give the Ely Lecture in 2008, hardly a sign that he is a marginal figure in the profession; that thoughtful lecture, now available as an article in the AER, didn't make it into Tol's review. Work by Simon Dietz and other economists who have collaborated with Stern is badly underrepresented. Stern's challenge to standard assumptions about discount rates, and the extensive peer-reviewed literature he cites on that subject in the Review, might have been worth discussing in a truly comprehensive literature review.

Martin Weitzman's recent work on uncertainty and climate change, one of the most important new theoretical insights in the field, suggests that the detailed cost calculations discussed by Tol may be irrelevant to policy. This, too, got only a passing mention, which falls far short of taking Weitzman's message seriously.

Totally omitted is the extensive work by several other European groups, including Ottmar Edenhofer and his colleagues at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Claudia Kemfert at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW), and Terry Barker at the Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR). US economists writing about climate change, outside the Nordhaus-Tol school, include Stephen DeCanio at the University of California, Richard Howarth at Dartmouth, and my colleague Frank Ackerman at Tufts. They, too, are absent from Tol's bibliography.

What's included? Tol's survey identifies 14 estimates of the global economic impact of climate change (Table 1 and Figure 1); five of these are by Nordhaus, presenting similar estimates from successive vintages of the same model. Two more are by Tol, and most of the others are by their colleagues and collaborators. (One of these estimates, from Hope 2006, is described in Tol's footnotes as the estimate used in the Stern Review; however, there must be a mistake here: the projection of significant economic gains at 2.5 degrees of warming, shown for that study, is clearly at odds with Stern's message and conclusions.) The fact that the Nordhaus-Tol school often projects economic gains from the early stages of warming is visible in Figure 1; the explanation of this odd "finding", however, is quite incomplete. Early versions of Nordhaus' DICE model projected large gains based on a thinly documented estimate of huge willingness to pay for warmer weather in cold, rich countries (Ackerman and Finlayson 2006). Tol's own estimate of huge health benefits from moderate warming is based on a series of empirical mistakes (Ackerman and Stanton 2008). Agricultural benefits from longer growing seasons and CO2 fertilization are the strongest argument for benefits from near-term warming, but recent research is shifting toward projections of agricultural losses rather gains from warming; the projected increase in the number of extremely hot summer days is bad for virtually all crops (e.g., Schlenker et al. 2006).

Tol also discusses 232 estimates of the marginal cost of carbon emissions. In his most recent publication analyzing these estimates (Tol 2008), which included 211 of them, he also provided data on authorship, showing that more than half - 112 of the 211 - were authored or coauthored by Tol himself. Thus to an extent which is unusual for literature surveys and meta-analyses, he is re-analyzing his own work. He did not, of course, do 112 unique studies; rather, he identified separate scenarios within his studies as yielding separate estimates. In contrast, the Stern Review, which included several widely discussed scenarios, was counted as a single estimate. That article (Tol 2008) seemed focused on demonstrating that Stern was an extreme outlier relative to the rest of "the literature" - meaning, it seems, the literature written by the Nordhaus-Tol school.

In the end, the crucial question is one of boundaries and definitions. Is the economics of climate change a gated community, where it is important to police the perimeters against intruders? Or is it an open public space for free-wheeling intellectual debate, welcoming new voices with something different to say? I hope that JEP, and the economics profession, will embrace the latter view in the future.

[waldo]

Every time some idiot finds a record warm temperature, they think it proves global warming:

ya ya, that's why every freaking cold snap draws a mainstream media response that continually conflates weather and climate change.

of course, in terms of record warm temperatures, it's clear you're quite frustrated having these continual reinforcements of the long-term warming trends pointed out to you. Obviously, they put a real damper in your cherry-picked short-term temperature trending scam - hey, Simple?

[TimG]

a review of peer reviewed literature on the topic... comprehensive?

How about that. You found an economist that disagrees with another economist. Next you will be reporting that novel discovery that the sun rises in the east. Tol's literature review limited itself to peer review publications which excludes a number of popular reports such as the Stern review. That said, I can't tell from Julie Nelson's comment whether any stuff was left out was 1) peer reviewed and 2) provided the numerical results required for comparison. It looks to me she is complaining that non-peer reviewed reports, conference proceedings and speeches should have been included.

In any case, that does not change my initial point: there is no compelling evidence that climate change will lead to a catastrophe that requires massive interventions today. What we have are the opinions of different economists with different biases/political ideologies.

Incidently, this Julie Nelson is a fellow at leftwing environmental advocacy think tank which makes all of her opinions as 'tainted' as Tol's is one uses your criteria for assessing sources.

Edited July 3, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

of course, in terms of record warm temperatures, it's clear you're quite frustrated having these continual reinforcements of the long-term warming trends pointed out to you.

It is getting warmer and will get warmer. I don't see any reason to dispute that point. The real question is why should we care about it.

[TheLastCanadian]

Global warming. Perhaps a hoax, perhaps not.

Regardless, there is no doubt what we do here is having adverse affects on the environment, perhaps not by baking us all, but by destroying the delicate balance of nature.

I say it's just as well we get something like this to scare us into action. Humans won't act until they're scared, and often with tragic results.

We'll have to deal with our environmental destruction eventually, or even the total loss of oil. Better we do it when we can fall back on it then when we have nothing.

[TimG]

I say it's just as well we get something like this to scare us into action. Humans won't act until they're scared, and often with tragic results.

Ever hear of the story "the boy who cried wolf". Advocates who think that exaggerating risks and overstating knowledge are justifiable will only cause more harm in the long run because people will stop listening.

Also, the environment is a complete phenomea and this single minded obsession with CO2 will likely cause more harm to the environment than anything else because CO2 free energy sources can be just as damaging to the environment as the existing ones.

[TheLastCanadian]

Ever hear of the story "the boy who cried wolf". Advocates who think that exaggerating risks and overstating knowledge are justifiable will only cause more harm in the long run because people will stop listening.

Also, the environment is a complete phenomea and this single minded obsession with CO2 will likely cause more harm to the environment than anything else because CO2 free energy sources can be just as damaging to the environment as the existing ones.

I agree with you this obsession is idiotic. But what I've seen from this is it's helped to focus people on the issue that we are affecting our environment, perhaps not in such a fashion, but nonetheless.

Where else will we get the jolt we need? Simple. When it is too late.

This may look like a flight of fancy, but if we don't get something to scare us into action, it will be the reality.

http://www.history.ca/video/default.aspx?releasePID=3BZ4tIDRmYNF4BjqMeZOoB3bsqaYLisn

As a species, we're appallingly stupid and arrogant. This will happen if we do not act now.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[Keepitsimple]

I agree with you this obsession is idiotic. But what I've seen from this is it's helped to focus people on the issue that we are affecting our environment, perhaps not in such a fashion, but nonetheless.

Where else will we get the jolt we need? Simple. When it is too late.

This may look like a flight of fancy, but if we don't get something to scare us into action, it will be the reality.

http://www.history.ca/video/default.aspx?releasePID=3BZ4tIDRmYNF4BjqMeZOoB3bsqaYLisn

As a species, we're appallingly stupid and arrogant. This will happen if we do not act now.

That's the sad part of the Climate Change fiasco.....the alarmists have managed to roll it all up into the "Environment" as if it's the only thing. Clean water, protecting habitat and species, reducing smog and pollutants, protecting water purity......all of the traditional and honourable exploits that used to define the Environment - are taking a back seat to "Climate Change". Billions upon billions have been sunk into a bottomless pit - money that could have served humanity in better ways than satisfying the hubris of those who would think that humans can control Mother Nature. It appears however, that Mother Nature has joined the ranks of the Skeptics.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[TheLastCanadian]

The only part of those billions I wouldn't call a loss is whatever we might have gleaned from research into alternative fuels. As I've said before, it's a matter of time before we run out, best we figure out how to deal with it while we still have something to fall back on.

Renewable fuels have further implications than just cleaning up some of the crap we throw out into the ecosystem.

The ecocars aren't terrible either. CO2, Smog, regardless of what they do to the environment, we certainly know what they like to do with our lungs.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[waldo]

so what? Uhhh... understanding the background positions of your two sourced individuals certainly presents their writings in an appropriate context and perspective - hey?

a review of peer reviewed literature on the topic... comprehensive?... all inclusive? Oh, apparently not:

How about that. You found an economist that disagrees with another economist. Next you will be reporting that novel discovery that the sun rises in the east. Tol's literature review limited itself to peer review publications which excludes a number of popular reports such as the Stern review. That said, I can't tell from Julie Nelson's comment whether any stuff was left out was 1) peer reviewed and 2) provided the numerical results required for comparison. It looks to me she is complaining that non-peer reviewed reports, conference proceedings and speeches should have been included.

what I (also) found and stated were the backgrounds/associations of your two quoted (and unattributed) sources... both linked to well known skeptic/denier organizations. Since you emphasized peer-review, I simply offered you up a little ole peer response - something that brought out your, "sun rises in the east" hyperbole... interesting! It would seem your touted meta-review article was a bit selective in including only a handful of collaborative authors (with half of the studies directly attributed to only 2 individuals - Nordhaus/and the author Toll)... notwithstanding, of course, that over half of the carbon emission estimates analyzed by Toll were actually his own. Hardly comprehensive... hardly inclusive - hey? You'll also have to make up your mind; you state you can't ascertain if the critique held concerns over the lack of peer reviewed studies included... and then in the very next sentence you proceed to identify the lack of inclusive as, "non-peer reviewed reports, conference proceedings and speeches". And you got that... from where?

In any case, that does not change my initial point: there is no compelling evidence that climate change will lead to a catastrophe that requires massive interventions today. What we have are the opinions of different economists with different biases/political ideologies.

and you're basing that on your linking to 2 biased sources... one being your highly suspect Toll article, the other a blind quote you couldn't even bother to link to or attribute to Taylor, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute? That's what passes for your stated, "compelling evidence"?

Incidently, this Julie Nelson is a fellow at leftwing environmental advocacy think tank which makes all of her opinions as 'tainted' as Tol's is one uses your criteria for assessing sources.

I certainly have no problem holding up Tufts University's GDAE to your two widely labeled skeptic/denier sources... the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and the Cato Institute. Other than your personal labeling, my cursory search didn't pull up anything that categorized Tufts University's GDAE as a, as you say, "leftwing environmental advocacy think tank". Since you so readily went to the ideological... surely there must be some right-wing collective that you could source to reaffirm your labeling of Tufts University's GDAE - hey?

[waldo]

It is getting warmer and will get warmer. I don't see any reason to dispute that point.

excellent... good on ya - don't hesitate to chime in when some of the other MLW usual suspects pull their, "it's cooling" nonsense.

[waldo]

Ever hear of the story "the boy who cried wolf". Advocates who think that exaggerating risks and overstating knowledge are justifiable will only cause more harm in the long run because people will stop listening.

Also, the environment is a complete phenomea and this single minded obsession with CO2 will likely cause more harm to the environment than anything else because CO2 free energy sources can be just as damaging to the environment as the existing ones.

don't hesitate to point out those examples of, as you say, "exaggerated risks and overstated knowledge"... of course, one should expect you will properly contextualize said examples, inclusive of risk/error analysis, inclusive of alternative scenario positioning, inclusive of timeframe associations, etc., etc., etc. Of course, your previous use of the CAGW acronym is a telling point on your perspective/position - hey?

since you accept it's warming, but choose to attribute the overwhelming consensus attribution principal cause for that warming as a, as you say, "single minded obsession with CO2"... don't hesitate to bring forward your support for principle warming causal alternatives, other than CO2. When that same request is put to the MLW usual suspects, all that seems to come back... is crickets - go figure!

[waldo]

That's the sad part of the Climate Change fiasco.....the alarmists have managed to roll it all up into the "Environment" as if it's the only thing. Clean water, protecting habitat and species, reducing smog and pollutants, protecting water purity......all of the traditional and honourable exploits that used to define the Environment - are taking a back seat to "Climate Change". Billions upon billions have been sunk into a bottomless pit - money that could have served humanity in better ways than satisfying the hubris of those who would think that humans can control Mother Nature. It appears however, that Mother Nature has joined the ranks of the Skeptics.

whaaaaa! Simple can't see the, 'traditional and honorable environmental exploits'... for the 'climate change'. Hmmmm, could it be so exclusively simple, Simple? Notwithstanding another of your "Concern Troll" tangents, it's quite telling that you would label "smog/pollutant" reduction as an honorable exploit, yet blindly and enthusiastically categorize CO2 emission reduction as hubris... as a futile attempt to control Mother Nature. Uhhh? Simple... you got some splainin to do.

[TimG]

You'll also have to make up your mind; you state you can't ascertain if the critique held concerns over the lack of peer reviewed studies included.

Here is Tol's response to Nelson:

Julie Nelson raises a number of issues with my paper.

First, she argues that the literature review on the total impact of climate change is incomplete. While it is true that many scholars have commented on the economic impact of climate change, few have published comprehensive estimates. I tried my best to synthesise the many concerns that people have raised in the caveats and interpretation of the numerical results. I did not, however, include a comprehensive list of every paper that has remarked on the subject, as that list would contain hundreds of papers.

The numerical results shown in the paper exclude derivative studies (Ayres and Walter, derived from Nordhaus; Berz, derived from Fankhauser; Kemfert, derived from Tol) and exclude partisan studies (Hohmeyer and Gaertner, funded by Greenpeace; Ackermann and Stanton, funded by Friends of the Earth). The Stern Review was excluded for both reasons. Stern's estimates are based on Hope's work. When writing his Review, Nick Stern was a civil servant. He is now a member of the House of Lords. The Stern Review was not reviewed by independent peers prior to its publication, while a published lecture does not substitute for peer review. The post-publication reviews (by, e.g., Dasgupta, Mendelsohn, Nordhaus, Weitzman, Yohe) raise many objections.

Second, she argues that the meta-analysis of the social cost of carbon contains a disproportionate amount of my own work. This is true. For that reason, I hesitated before writing my 2005 paper in Energy Policy. However, there was a clear demand for a paper like that, and no one was interested in writing it. I did do sensitivity analyses excluding one of the three dominant authors (Hope, Nordhaus, Tol), which showed that there is no overdue influence by any author. Still, there is a whiff of subjectivity around this piece of research. All the data are on my website, so that anyone can replicate what I did or do what they think is best.

Third, she argues that I ignore the Dismal Theorem of Martin Weitzman. Page limits meant that I could not pay more attention. I think the result is important, and I indeed published a mini-version of the Dismal Theorem in 2003. The Dismal Theorem is incomplete, however, as it excludes the costs of emission abatement. Until it is phrased in a proper decision analytic framework, I do not think one can draw many conclusions from the Dismal Theorem -- except that one should be very careful in interpreting the estimates of the economic impact of climate change. That message, I believe, is the main message of my paper.

Other than your personal labeling, my cursory search didn't pull up anything that categorized Tufts University's GDAE as a, as you say, "leftwing environmental advocacy think tank".

Here is their overview of their economic theory: http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/advancing_theory/theory_overview.html

GDAE seeks to develop approaches to economic theory that give appropriate weight to ecological, cultural, social, and institutional factors. We join with others who reject the single goal of growth in GDP, advocating an economic analysis that is based on broader concepts of economic well-being. We call economics that takes account of humanity's social and physical environments "contextual economics." Our conceptual framework for theory development is explained in depth in a paper by Neva R. Goodwin.

Classic left wing economic thinking. They list John Kenneth Galbraith as inspriration. They claim in their own materials that they wish to counter the 'right wing bias' in high school materials.

GDAE is a ideology driven organization like the Cato institute and you cannot credibly argue otherwise. This means that Nelson has no credibility according to your standards for academics. If you are OK is Nelson's association with GDAE then you can hardly complain about Tol's association with Cato.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

since you accept it's warming, but choose to attribute the overwhelming consensus attribution principal cause for that warming as a, as you say, "single minded obsession with CO2"... don't hesitate to bring forward your support for principle warming causal alternatives, other than CO2.

You seem to be missing the point. The is issue is not whether X% of the recent warming was caused by CO2. The issue is whether CO2 represents a threat that can be addressed by actions today. My own opinion is CO2 induced warming is not the threat people make it out to be and (most importantly) even if it was we can't do anything about it with the technology we have today. Edited July 4, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Classic left wing economic thinking. They list John Kenneth Galbraith as inspriration. They claim in their own materials that they wish to counter the 'right wing bias' in high school materials.

GDAE is a ideology driven organization like the Cato institute and you cannot credibly argue otherwise. This means that Nelson has no credibility according to your standards for academics. If you are OK is Nelson's association with GDAE then you can hardly complain about Tol's association with Cato.

interesting... you pulled the ideological card - all I ever initially emphasized was the associations of your two quoted/linked sources to well known skeptic/denier associations... and countered your touted 'peer reviewed' article with a 'peer response'. Is everything, to you, a blanket black/white, right-wing/left-wing dichotomy? I wonder how that affects your overall related climate change raison d'etre - just sayin.

As I said, I certainly have no problem holding up Tufts University's GDAE to your two widely labeled skeptic/denier sources... the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) and the Cato Institute... particularly in regards this overall discussions emphasis on climate change, notwithstanding the Cato Institute's past associations with 'Big Tobacco'.

[Keepitsimple]

You seem to be missing the point. The is issue is not whether X% of the recent warming was caused by CO2. The issue is whether CO2 represents a threat that can be addressed by actions today. My own opinion is CO2 induced warming is not the threat people make it out to be and (most importantly) even if it was we can't do anything about it with the technology we have today.

.....and the world is starting to warm up to that opinion.

[waldo]

don't hesitate to point out those examples of, as you say, "exaggerated risks and overstated knowledge"... of course, one should expect you will properly contextualize said examples, inclusive of risk/error analysis, inclusive of alternative scenario positioning, inclusive of timeframe associations, etc., etc., etc. Of course, your previous use of the CAGW acronym is a telling point on your perspective/position - hey?

since you accept it's warming, but choose to attribute the overwhelming consensus attribution principal cause for that warming as a, as you say, "single minded obsession with CO2"... don't hesitate to bring forward your support for principle warming causal alternatives, other than CO2. When that same request is put to the MLW usual suspects, all that seems to come back... is crickets - go figure!

You seem to be missing the point. The is issue is not whether X% of the recent warming was caused by CO2. The issue is whether CO2 represents a threat that can be addressed by actions today. My own opinion is CO2 induced warming is not the threat people make it out to be and (most importantly) even if it was we can't do anything about it with the technology we have today.

well... we're getting closer. So it's clear, you've stated an acceptance that's it's warming (of course, only dolts suggest otherwise), and, correct me if I'm wrong, with this, your latest reply, you appear to accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal cause of that warming. You, apparently, think it's no biggee and/or "there's nothing that can be done about it anyway". How are we doing so far?

in any case, as for missing points and issue declaration, your 'head-in-the-sand' position is a somewhat alternative stand (ya think)... not only when paired up against mainstream scientific climate change consensus, but also when compared with the much publicized and prolific skeptic/denier crew and, most certainly, as relates to the MLW usual suspects of unknowing self-described skeptics and/or the miscreant fabricating and distorting MLW denier group. If you actually decide to stick around this time, you might have something new to offer... I actually was disappointed when you turned tail after your set-back in our initial discussion concerning the IPCC and sea-level rise.

[waldo]

don't hesitate to point out those examples of, as you say, "exaggerated risks and overstated knowledge"... of course, one should expect you will properly contextualize said examples, inclusive of risk/error analysis, inclusive of alternative scenario positioning, inclusive of timeframe associations, etc., etc., etc. Of course, your previous use of the CAGW acronym is a telling point on your perspective/position - hey?

since you accept it's warming, but choose to attribute the overwhelming consensus attribution principal cause for that warming as a, as you say, "single minded obsession with CO2"... don't hesitate to bring forward your support for principle warming causal alternatives, other than CO2. When that same request is put to the MLW usual suspects, all that seems to come back... is crickets - go figure!

You seem to be missing the point. The is issue is not whether X% of the recent warming was caused by CO2. The issue is whether CO2 represents a threat that can be addressed by actions today. My own opinion is CO2 induced warming is not the threat people make it out to be and (most importantly) even if it was we can't do anything about it with the technology we have today.

.....and the world is starting to warm up to that opinion.

well... we're getting closer. So it's clear, you've stated an acceptance that's it's warming (of course, only dolts suggest otherwise), and, correct me if I'm wrong, with this, your latest reply, you appear to accept that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal cause of that warming. You, apparently, think it's no biggee and/or "there's nothing that can be done about it anyway". How are we doing so far?

in any case, as for missing points and issue declaration, your 'head-in-the-sand' position is a somewhat alternative stand (ya think)... not only when paired up against mainstream scientific climate change consensus, but also when compared with the much publicized and prolific skeptic/denier crew and, most certainly, as relates to the MLW usual suspects of unknowing self-described skeptics and/or the miscreant fabricating and distorting MLW denier group. If you actually decide to stick around this time, you might have something new to offer... I actually was disappointed when you turned tail after your set-back in our initial discussion concerning the IPCC and sea-level rise.

hey Simple... that's certainly not been your expressed opinion - hey? How does your misplaced determination on "the world's" opinion" (the world's, no less!), in the context of TimG's acceptance of warming and it's anthropogenic CO2 based principal cause, sit with your avowed MLW positions that it's cooling and that anything/everything "natural" is the cause for that warming... oh wait, cooling... warming... cooling... warming..... just which position do you actually hold, today?