Thomas Friedman writes in the New York Times:
Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics, surely the silliest is the argument that because Washington is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.
He’s right in principle. One observation doesn’t make a trend. Of course Phil Jones has said recently that there’s no trend for the last 15 years. But never mind. Then, after making fun of DeMint and Inhofe for being climate change skeptics, and pointing out that some climate change skepticism has been funded by self-interested sources, Friedman writes:
Although there remains a mountain of research from multiple institutions about the reality of climate change, the public has grown uneasy. What’s real? In my view, the climate-science community should convene its top experts — from places like NASA, America’s national laboratories, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford, the California Institute of Technology and the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre — and produce a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes.
What we know.
For me that seemingly innocuous phrase sums it up perfectly. What do we know? Very little. Scientists, mostly self-interested by the way, like most human beings and mostly with a financial stake in the game, have estimated various effects. They may be right. They may be wrong. There are at least hills of research that suggest skepticism about global warming. Would those finding be in the 50 page report? And of course there would be bigger hills and maybe mountains if the peer-review process were more honest.
A report that could communicate to a sixth grader what we know would be a very thin report. Most of what Thomas Friedman thinks we know is based on multiple regression analysis trying to hold other factors constant other than human carbon emissions and making a variety of assumptions about the interactions between those factors along with the factors we cannot measure. That is hard to explain to a sixth grader. It can be done But it’s not knowledge. It’s an attempt to gain knowledge.
It is very similar to writing a report for a sixth grader on how the stimulus turned out. We have fewer jobs than we had before. That’s what we know. But even I, a skeptic, wouldn’t call that knowledge about whether the “stimulus” package worked or not. But I wouldn’t use the CBO estimate either. The CBO estimate is a repeat of the forecast it made before the legislation passed. We don’t know how many jobs were created or destroyed by the legislation.
Share
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 121 comments }
← Previous Comments
That's a logical fallacy that proves nothing. Earth's climate is extraordinarily complex. Many of the details are poorly understood (what we know we don't know). Also, we don't know everything about how the climate works (what we don't know we don't know). Add to that the total absence of evidence supporting the strong positive CO2 feedback mechanism and you're left just not knowing.
Given the political nature of the IPCC and recent revelations about the qualify of some of the information they used, I don't see the IPCC report as very useful right now.
I agree with you on the value of being able to explain complex issues to sixth graders, but I'm curious what you think we know that makes us able to act. What actions should we take? What will those actions cost? What effects will those actions have? Do those effects provide more benefit that they cost? What data or evidence do you have that supports your conclusions on those questions?
I'm unaware of any proof of the high positive feedback CO2 forcing necessary to predict significant impacts from anthropogenic CO2. Do you know of any proof of that hypothesis?
From a certain perspective, this is not very different from investing in a disaster contingency plan. How much to spend is seldom an easy decision, especially when there many are other conflicting priorities and demands for scare resources. It all depends on the assessment of the risk and the scope of the potential impact. A low probability high impact disaster is as bad as a high probability low impact disaster. Operative word: probability, not certainty. When it comes to the future, there is no such thing as certainty.
That said, there are several things that we can do, most of which are worth doing anyway. For example, investing in R&D in areas such as renewable energy is a good idea. How much to spend on it, and at the expense of what other priorities, is a highly context-sensitive question. And even for a given context (country / company / community / ..) it is subject to a cost / benefit analysis and a consensus among the relevant stakeholders on investment prioritization. There needs to be a robust business case, but it need not wait for 100% clarity of information and 100% reliability of information, because that could take forever.
Like most other business decisions, you have to act based on insufficient information, and information whose quality is uncertain. Enterprises do this all the time when they make big decision, and big decisions usually involve large sums of money. Why is that such a problem in the case of climate change? If we keep waiting for proof “beyond reasonable doubt”, we will never get to build the business case, which means we will never act. My point is this – you don't need to see the monster with 100% clarity in high-def / hi-res. mode, to call it out for what it is and fight it. Why? Because there's a good chance that while you sit there waiting for the scientists you trust (?) to get you your 100% evidence, it could just destroy you.
Some questions, back at you: First, do you agree that it is at least somewhat likely that we have a problem on our hands? Or do you think this whole thing is a giant hoax? How much proof is enough proof for you before you decide to act? Who will you trust to give you that proof? How long will you wait for it?
Think about it. We're unlikely get a second chance on this. And there's no point waking up when its too late – in which case we may as well party like there's no tomorrow, because that may well be true.
Skepticism for the sake of skepticism is as bad as belief for the sake of belief.
P.S. I've refrained from getting into specific statistics and data elements because we can take that and argue about its veracity till the cows come home. As I've already observed earlier in this note, it's about making a judgement call with insufficient data, and poor quality of data at that. It could be that most of the CO2 came from somewhere else, but the last molecule of CO2 that Man adds might cause a disaster. (It takes just the last straw to break the camel's back.) Do you want to take that chance? I don't.
What if the costs of action are worse than the costs of inaction?
Perhaps the time, money and energy would be better spent in adapting to our changing climate rather than trying to control the human activity that is blamed for something that it may or may not actually cause.
Controlling that activity would require global cooperation among governments with some sort of central oversight. It would require using force against any who do not cooperate. Deadly force if necessary, it's the fate of the entire human race we're talking about here. Call me a tinfoil hatter, but that's the recipe for a one world government that controls every aspect of our life. And anthropogenic global warming is a way to get people to beg on their knees for that one world government.
We’re still waiting for proof to a MUCH lower standard than “beyond reasonable doubt” regarding AGW. The evidence strongly suggests we face no imminent threat of anything near catastrophic, so doing nothing while we learn more seems like the most prudent action at this time.
Neither – I think it’s very unlikely we have a problem on our hands. It is possible that human activity is impacting global climate, but I’m not sure we can even measure it, much less alter it in a controllable fashion. Further, it’s not at all clear that the impact (if real) is anything to be concerned about.
At a minimum I would like to see solid evidence supporting the positive feedback hypothesis. I am not aware of any such evidence; in fact the evidence we have indicates an overall negative feedback. Computer models based on the positive feedback hypothesis have been proven invalid.
What a strange question – who gives the proof is irrelevant. What is relevant is the proof itself; it should be repeatable/verifiable by independent (and yes, skeptical) others. That’s the way science is supposed to work.
I’m not a fan of the precautionary principal – I think it’s foolish and dangerous. The evidence for AGW is very weak (it seems to come down to “we don’t know what else could cause the warming” and rely on a hypothesis that has been all but falsified). Even if AGW is real, our ability to stop it is even less certain (not to mention probably far worse in impact than the warming).
Do you want to take the chance on expanding government (or UN) powers to the point they can enforce a “solution” based on the flimsy evidence we have and the near certainty of serious negative consequences? I don’t.
You do realize that glaciers advance and retreat all the time – and always have. Glaciers extended south of NYC about 18,000 years ago? I assure you man did not cause the retreat of those glaciers. Glaciers can also advance and retreat over short time frames too (decade).
What really kills me is the lack of marketing skills that people like you have. You are so wrapped up in your mission to make everyone believe in GW, that you are paralyzed. There are plenty of other reasons to reduce CO2 emissions that do not include GW. The #1 marketing mantra for people like you should be dependence on foreign oil, the negative environmental effects of coal (really dirty stuff), and clean air. More people will agree on those points, and might be willing to act.
IN the US, we could reduce oil consumption by 30% in just 2 years, if our dumb government would simply clean up laws that favor telecommuting over having to work on premises. Unfortunately, such action would hurt 2 key Democrat party principles: protect the auto union at all costs (telecommuting will reduce demand for cars), and taxes. Reduced driving hurts gas tax revenue, and states will fear losses on income taxes.
Forgot this link:
http://webworkerdaily.com/2009/12/18/ending-unf...
Ending Unfair Telecommuter Taxes
Editor’s note: This is a guest post from Nicole Goluboff. Goluboff, a lawyer and Advisory Board Member of the Telework Coalition, is the author of “The Law of Telecommuting,” “Telecommuting for Lawyers” and numerous articles on telework.
If we don't know or can't know much of anything, then academia should shut down and all the professors should get a real job. The old saying about those who can do, and those who can't teach…
I was thinking today about the worth of someone who teaches a game like chess or bridge, or how to play the guitar. The teacher gets paid to do that, yet in general, they “produce” very little if anything. This leads me to believe that most education is basically a waste, as well. Yes, the educational process is a myth, just as global warming is! People should learn to teach themselves whatever they want to know. If you are too dumb to teach yourself, then you are too dumb to be in school. Formal education is a myth, if I haven't made mayself clear. Did Edison need it? Hell no! Accumulated knowledge is in the encyclopedia. When was the last time you looked something up in old, dusty and trusty Britannica? You lazy bums do a Google search and probably plagarize most of what your write. This lead me to believe that Jim Jones was right. Humanity should take a sip of cyanide laced koolaid, and forget about the plight of the planet. So what if the polar icecaps melt. What did they ever do for me? Ayn Rand would be appalled by all the fuss. First you complain about a drought and a dust bowl, then you complain when you've go more water than you know what to do with. I suggest we all take up scuba diving. Teach yourself how, of course! We can build highways underwater. Forget about fire insurance, and double up on flood insurance. There's no problem that can't be managed. And when you are dead, who gives a rat's ass?
If the costs of the action are more than the costs of inaction and the benefits of action are less than the benefits of inaction, we don't move ahead with the action. Duh. Sorry, but I'd imagine that that's obvious.
I'm not a climate change evangelist. I was a skeptic till my research led me to believe that there is a business case for at least some actions, in areas such as renewable energy, waste management and resource management (such as water). A lot of the suggested actions in this regard are highly cost beneficial in any case. Go read up on this if you'd like to know more. There's a lot of material out there in the public domain.
I think you're being just a tad paranoid about a fascist “World Government” taking away your freedom on the pretext of controlling global warming. You've probably been reading too many books / watching too many movies with that theme.
Oh, so I get it now – your problem is “big government”, just like the other commenter above. That's a different conversation altogether and I don't plan on having it here. But this much I will say – I have no problems with regulation, only with authoritarianism. I don't believe that free markets can solve all our problems. In fact I think if they go unchecked they create more problems than solve them. (As evidence, I submit that the recent global financial crisis was mostly caused by excessive freedom of market participants.) My view, and clearly you don't agree. Let's leave it at that.
You're not a fan of the precautionary principle? OK, that's you're approach to life and I won't quarrel with that either. I have a different approach. If my doctor warns me of a risk, I take precautions. Period. I don't wait till all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed on the diagnosis. In the case of climate change, its not just about me, its about my kids and their kids and so on. Clearly then, I believe in the better safe than sorry approach. To each his own. In any case, the areas where I think we need to change the way we do things are, for example, renewable energy, waste management and resource management, to name a few. Anything we do in these areas within a reasonable cost and time-frame can only lead to benefits.
Who you trust for proof is a strange question ONLY IF you plan to verify it yourself. You have the time, energy and money to do that? Great! Be my guest. For the rest of us, we would only “believe” evidence that comes from someone “we trust”. Of course, it had better be verifiable (and yes, thank you, I know how science works). But verifiable doesn't mean we are actually going to verify it ourselves, unless, like you, we have the time, money and energy to spend on first-hand verification. I hope the distinction is clear? Hence the question – who should we trust for proof.
Regarding skepticism – an afterthought – I take back what I wrote earlier, and I would like to rephrase it thus: “Denial for the sake of denial is as bad as belief for the sake of belief.” Skepticism is a good thing (when taken in the right quantities), yes, I agree with that. It is the way of science. Thanks for reminding me about that. An open mind should go together with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Which takes me to my final point – again, I am not going to get drawn into quoting climate change data from reports etc. but it seems we've been accessing slightly different sources of information. I will only say this to conclude this rather interesting thread (from my side) – if you do have an open mind (as your last comment seems to suggest), please go ahead and research the subject a little more. The subject I refer to is a little broader in scope than CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. It is about the overall impact of human activity on the ecological balance of the planet. There's quite a bit of data out there in the public domain.
““Natural cycles will often effect(sic) conditions on a short term basis but will not effect the larger man made trends.” “
That's Dan Quayle level hilarious.
That, and academic journals in most fields aren't designed to check the veracity of the data, but rather the analysis.
OK so you think it's stupendous and funny. But sadly you will not be able to name a natural cycle that has overpowered human forcing over the last 200 years or 5,000 for that matter. Which natural cycle makes me look like a fool you fuckin numb-nut?
Why did nature put so much into evolving our incredibly complex brain when it's so massively misused by dullards and jackasses such as your selves? We … as a species really have little right to push forward intact through the coming storm. It really is an Idiocracy out there.
I should have been more precise – I’m not a fan of the precautionary principal as justification for coercion. Your personal example is obviously being prudent – I do the same – but that is a case of you making decisions for yourself, not imposing your decisions on others without their consent. To me that is a big difference.
One problem with regulation is it seems to usually benefit the established at the expense of the entrepreneurial, thus making most of us worse off. It also seems to often give people a false sense of security. Do you agree?
On the “who to trust” question – I don’t intend to do my own verification and that isn’t germane to my point. For me it’s the process, not the people (IOW what to trust, not who to trust). I don’t see some grand conspiracy or think the majority of alarmist (for lack of a better term) scientists intend deception, but I see numerous problems with the way the research has been going (herding, group-think, politicalization, etc). This is why, in the case of AGW, some of the verifiers must be skeptical of the hypothesis for the credibility to be high.
By the way, I intended no implication about your understanding of science; I was lamenting how far from proper science parts of AGW research have gotten. My apologies for not being clear. I completely agree with your point on denial or belief for their own sake. Those are positions of faith; neither has anything to do with science.
If I’m reading you properly, in your final paragraph you touch on something I think is very important. All the focus on AGW is diverting attention from more important issues where we have less uncertainty.
Your observation is correct – I do have an open (though skeptical) mind and no use for dogma on either side. I don’t claim complete knowledge and often ask those who are convinced of AGW to show me the evidence I’m unaware of. It seems to come down to “we don’t know what else it could be” along with an unlikely hypothesis of strong CO2 forcing via a positive feedback effect on water vapor. That’s a fine reason to continue research, not a call to action.
I agree – decisions for self, not imposing on others.
Regulation – we get the government we deserve. It's up to us to make sure we get regulated appropriately. Yes, even the best governments tend to feed their own hunger for power. But I'm no big fan of self-regulation by market forces either. This is a very old debate between two economic models (in various shapes and forms) and I guess will continue to rage for quite some time to come. It's a Hobson's choice and there are no clear / absolute answers. Speaking for myself, between governments (that I vote into office) and corporations (whose produce I may or may not purchase) I trust governments. It sucks, but .. I don't see a third option.
I understand where you're coming from regarding verification in terms of transparency in process etc. But that level of verification too requires more effort and time than just reading a report, doesn't it?
Apologies if I over-reacted to what I thought was a tongue-in-cheek comment.
I agree that we need to conduct far more research, but that itself is predicated on the fact that there is a business case to put money into conducting that research – this is encouraging. At least there is enough evidence to support the belief that more research is needed and that it is worthwhile to invest time and money into it! BTW that plays into my first point i.e. we know enough to act – one of the actions is to conduct more research and to know more, with better clarity and higher degree of certainty, where exactly things stand. There's quite a bit of confusion at this time due to evangelists and deniers having hijacked the debate.
Since you seem to be a King Crimson fan I thought I'd end with a line that comes to mind, in this context: Confusion will be my epitaph / As I crawl a cracked and broken path / If we make it we can all sit back and have a laugh / But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying …
No apology needed – I have a strong sarcastic streak so yours was a reasonable interpretation (especially given the vitriol this topic inspires) – I'll try to be more clear on real points and more outrageous with my sarcasm
)
I half agree with you – I don't trust corporations or government, especially when they gang up on us. It does seem that governments are more dangerous because they have more power; corporations only have such power when they get government to be the enforcer (and they can do that only when government power is sufficient). I expect we'll continue to disagree on that, but I'm with you on the it sucks part.
Sounds like we have at least some common ground. It sounds like you agree we should get the politics out of science (I'm not optimistic that will happen).
I hope for now all we do is research; if we follow the pattern shown in this graph we may be at/near the peak and start cooling again soon.
<http://www.climate-movie.com/wordpress/wp-conte...>
As a 21st century schizoid man I appreciate the epitaph…
Here's an example of how actual verification differs from apparent verifiability: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942
Also (a) gives context to the question “who do you trust” and (b) brings out the fact that deniers are as bad at faking stuff as evangelists
(This is just FYI and out of general interest. I think we've agreed on most counts and agreed to disagree on others, which says something about the quality of debate. “I've been here and I've been there and I've been in between.” And so I've learned to appreciate that!)
The link made me curious since Lomborg has been in the evangelist crosshairs for quite some time. Not surprisingly, Bjorn has responded to Friel's book.
<http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/11...>
I've only skimmed the beginning – I'll read more when I get some time. We'll have to see how this unfolds.
Here's an example of how actual verification differs from apparent verifiability: http://www.newsweek.com/id/233942
Also (a) gives context to the question “who do you trust” and (b) brings out the fact that deniers are as bad at faking stuff as evangelists
(This is just FYI and out of general interest. I think we've agreed on most counts and agreed to disagree on others, which says something about the quality of debate. “I've been here and I've been there and I've been in between.” And so I've learned to appreciate that!)
The link made me curious since Lomborg has been in the evangelist crosshairs for quite some time. Not surprisingly, Bjorn has responded to Friel's book.
<http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/11...>
I've only skimmed the beginning – I'll read more when I get some time. We'll have to see how this unfolds.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.