From Eos June 11, 2013, PAGE 215, comes a recommendation that the finance community and climate scientists work together. One wonders though, if people in the results driven financial world will soon realize that the climate models just aren’t performing, and drop such collaborations like yesterday’s bad stock tip.
Collaboration Urged for Climate Science and Finance Communities
Increased coordination and collaboration is needed between the climate science
community and the financial services industry, according to speakers at a 3–4 June
workshop held in Washington, D. C., by the American Meteorological Society (AMS).
The AMS workshop brought together business and financial leaders and climate scientists.
The financial industry needs climate data for a variety of predictions, but there has
been little collaboration between the industry and the climate science community, speakers said.
In a briefing summarizing the conference outcomes, Gary Geernaert, director of the
Department of Energy’s Climate and Environmental Sciences Division, pointed to the variety of climate data needs for different stakeholders. For example, catastrophic event
risk managers may need short- term predictions of extreme weather events, while
reinsurance managers need climate predictions on longer- term time scales. He said that
in some cases, currently available climate change information does not meet the needs
of these stakeholders. In particular, climate models often do not adequately represent the
likelihood of the most extreme events or take into account multistressor events that happen when different weather extremes occur at the same time.
…
Climate modelers and financial decision makers are different in many ways and do not
often interact, explained Tom Bogdan, president of the University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. However, “uncertainty, risk, change—these
are not concepts that are alien to financial decision makers,” he said. Variability in the
Earth system, from extreme events to changes in temperature to air quality issues, brings
uncertainty, risk, and change to the financial landscape, he noted. Building relationships
between financial decision makers and climate scientists is key, Bogdan said,
because “you can’t adapt to climate change by googling climate change.”
Full essay here, thanks to Dr. Leif Svalgaard.
Bankers love carbon credits, it creates a new “market”. The investment banks and trade exchanges were competing to be the carbon trading platform. While the bankers may be climate change agnostic, they’re more than willing to make money on it.
If they use their data there will be another banking crisis.
Wrong.
Obviously, brokering transactions (as is typically done by investment bankers) don’t require any predicting since they don’t take any risk. But those that take “directional bets” are most certainly required to predict the future in order to make money. Even if such prediction is the continued existence of market inefficiencies being created by misguided political influence.
Again, they need to predict the future even if such prediction is the continued existence of market inefficiencies being created by misguided political influence.
A large number of them have been burned by alternative energy investments. So, Anthony is certainly right to at least “wonder” if they will “realize” that they shouldn’t rely on climate models to be the basis of investments.
Its too late – financial organisations already have their own sophisticated weather and climate models.
The reason – oil transport.
Many banks, particularly US banks, operate substantial merchant shipping fleets. The delivery price of oil is based on volume – barrels of oil. But oil exhibits substantial thermal expansion at room temperature – the total volume of oil in the oil container ship varies significantly depending on whether it is a warm day.
So financial organisations which are weather sensitive have invested years of effort into models which work.
Since so much money hinges on good information about the weather, they will have zero tolerance for the slipshod lies of the climate community.
Just what we need to get to the ‘truth’ – economists and climate modellers. Throw in some lawyers so that when any 3 of them get together there will be 7 opinions, projections, scenarios and forecasts, all of which will not become reality.
Perhaps the ensemble mean of their various prognostications will be statistically significant having eliminated natural variation.
Will the bankers fund the climate modellers to produce the results the bankers need to gouge more money from gullible governments so that they can pay the modellers (there’s a closed loop system you can bank on).
Wha…?? Bankers have been the prime movers of Kyoto and Cap and Trade since the 1990’s.
Doubt me? Ask Jo Nova.
There are truly enormous amounts of money to be made from predicting weather/climate 3 months to 30 years in the future. From the price of every commodity to the likelyhood a manufacturer of say barbeques will default on a loan. Amounts of money that make profits from carbon trading look like loose pocket change.
The thing is that if someone can do this, they will try to keep it secret as long as possible.
“Eos: let’s get the bankers and the climate modelers talking, but will the bankers be too realistic?”
—————————
It;s been that way since the beginning,…money speaks all languages!
K Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
B. Bernanke: “I’m puzzled too.”
Yeah… finance and models. That always works well….
“Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street”
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp_quant?currentPage=all
GeoLurking
Yeah… finance and models. That always works well….
“Recipe for Disaster: The Formula That Killed Wall Street”
The difference between banking and climate science is when a banker scr*ws up, they usually get fired. There is incentive to get it right.
“… as scientists deal with government budget cuts, collaboration with financial decision makers is one way to make clear the tangible benefits of climate science research,… .”
[quote from above Eos article — THANKS, Leif Svalgaard, for a copy of the whole thing]
The Climatologists’ angle is clear, but, why should any banker with average risk-aversion gamble their or their clients’ money on fantasy science?
The bankers certainly do not need the climatologists, LOL. Oh, I just wonder how the Futures market got along without Bill Nye and the gang all these years (eye roll).
The only way the bankers will help the D’oh!bama Administration-Climatology racket is if there is something in it for them:
1) Regulations favoring their investment, e.g., coercive taxes; or
2) OPM (Other People’s Money, a.k.a., tax revenue — in which case, the bankers will NOT go long… you inevitably do, as Margaret Thatcher was famous for saying, “run out of other people’s money.”)
So, the key, as has been said on WUWT by many others, is to boot those Chicago-thug, neo-Stalinist, louses out of office!
[my apologies to John for posting at all — I responded to your grievance on the June 19 MET data supp. thread, BTW — decided to keep on posting until more WUWT commenters tell me to stop — until then, just scroll on by — Ha! You probably did, so this was silly to write, huh? LOL]
I am in full agreement with John 10:39 am
The financial people do not believe the climate models.
The financial people do not necessarily believe that politicians believe the climate models.
The financial people FULLY BELIEVE in anticipating what politician will do next.
If politicians are about to do something using climate models for support,
then financial people will be very interested in those climate models.
Then and only then will the financial people take a position…
There will be SHORT positions as well as LONG positions.
A final discomforting” thought: Financial people can make terabucks by making the right short position using derivatives. All you have to do is be confident that disaster is neigh. When it comes to CAGW Climate Change rules and legislation, economic disaster is a guaranteed future.
Yes, the (C)AGW has always been a capitalist bandwagon.
“Variability in the Earth system, from extreme events to changes in temperature to air quality issues, brings uncertainty, risk, and change to the financial landscape,” he noted.
Thank you Captain Obvious. The Financial community has been dealing with this variability for a LONG time. Lloyd’s of London was started in 1689.
Excellent post! And if I were back near my regular computer, I would be able to add links and evidence that I have going back to 1990 that confirms what you write about the World Bank’s seminal involvement with UNEP’s Maurice Strong and Baron Edmund de Rothschild’s Gland, Switzerland operations, which the Global Environment Facility grew out of, again, in Gland, Switzerland.
The plan, revealed at a secret meeting after the 4th World Conservation Congress (think that’s the name) in Denver, CO in 1987, was to set aside–steal–35% of the world’s land for conservation purposes in return for paying off Third World deb through a bank they were going to name the World Conservation Bank. Their map showed purloined land for “conservation purposes” from every country except the USA, and every location they chose sat on that country’s greatest resources. At the time, the then undeceased de Rothschild was going to be running the World Conservation Bank with the global investors and conservation types he was talking to in the room. At the end of his talk, Baron de Rothschild said that he would be engaging the World Bank and the WWF. Don’t forget that one of his relatives (Gabriel? Gilbert?) was a co-founder of the WWF. Rothschild also said that David Rockefeller would be running the “sustainable development” part of this massive land grab. The Rothschilds and Rockefellers formed their first financial partnership in the US recently (Google it) just in time to benefit from the most hideous and draconian piece of legislation Americans could ever agree to, should it pass, the Trans-Pacific Partnership. [The Trans-Pacific Partnership is being conducted in secret. It would give transnational corporations the right and ability to alter the laws of any nation in the partnership in complete contravention of the wishes of that country’s people. Senator Elizabeth Warren screamed bloody murder about it last week. It needs to be stopped. That is after Americans find out what it does.]
Wikipedia, for once, gives some accurate history of the Global Environment Facility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Environment_Facility
Gail,
This link doesn’t work. Since the link you have here appears to be a comment (but I could be wrong), and if you have a copy of this, could you publish that information here, or do you have a better link?
“Watch Out: The World Bank Is Quietly Funding a Massive Corporate Water Grab”
The goal is to sell the bankers on the climate models, and establish them as financial bellwethers in their minds. The bankers will then sell (dictate to) the government as a result.
There are Wealth Creators and Wealth Manipulators.Wealth Creators tend towards either Free Market Capitalism, or Corporatism (the ones that had to much Marxist indoctrination as youths). Wealth Manipulators are almost entirely Socialists ( in the inclusive sense, not the misleading restrictive sense promoted by socialist in order to hide their true intentions). Bankers are by definition Wealth Manipulators. They hate the idea of people being able to create wealth that they can’t control. The love the carbon tax. Who do you think came up with the notion of Carbon Exchanges?
Gail Combs, never mind about the non-working link. I found the original article here:
http://www.alternet.org/story/148700/watch_out%3A_the_world_bank_is_quietly_funding_a_massive_corporate_water_grab
The link between Keynesian economic thought (Central Planning to manage the global economy and intervene in business cycles) is directly analogous to AGW. A deep doctrine and statist belief is required with both philosophies.
The banking system is currently dependent on printing (fiat money) currency and expanding total credit to survive. There is no conclusive method to deleverage without a huge negative impact to society. We live in a constant threat of monetary instability and devaluation of money longer term.
It’s a perfectly understandable alliance in the context of those who believe in central planning and global regimes. Defrauding others for the “common good” is an essential common denominator in both applications. AGW is deeply modeled after the global financial orthodoxy and is another threat to individual freedoms. Keynesian economics was the original junk science application built on consensus of “experts”. Most of whom are deeply tied to Utopianistic leftism. The parallels are overwhelming.
“The link between Keynesian economic thought (Central Planning to manage the global economy and intervene in business cycles) is directly analogous to AGW.”
(1) Your definition of “Keynesian economic thought” is completely wrong. It has exactly zero to do with managing the global economy, and everything to do with sovereign governments with a monetarily sovereign currency like the US, Britain, Japan, Australia, and Canada, being able to respond to the business cycles within their nations without being hijacked by bond vigilantes or erroneous ideas of deficit spending. In the US, where the once powerful idea that it was a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, financial capitalism (the capitalism that serves the elite) has overtaken industrial capitalism; hence, the power of the banks and not the financial and social welfare of the people. In fact, the great power of the bank lobbyists in the last three decades has been to convince the less than observant masses that it should be content with a government size that does not serve its needs and convinced them that it should be demonized…just like CO2.
(2) It is the exact opposite of AGW.
cwon14,
read this. interesting piece.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2013/06/13/debunking-the-narrative-of-silicon-valleys-innovation-might/
policycritic says:
June 21, 2013 at 6:45 pm
“bond vigilantes or erroneous ideas of deficit spending”
Government should be larger? I think I’ve linked the ideology and the sources pretty well.
The Government must be made smaller, weaker, and more limited in powers. It the 16th amendment is repealed there will be a mass exodus of 10,000 K Street Lobbyist from DC.
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/article-v.html
policycritic says:
June 21, 2013 at 7:20 pm
Socialist Utopianism and the depiction of the largest governments in world history as underfunded by individuals. You’re living in a alternate universe, very warmist in culture.
Edim says:
June 21, 2013 at 6:42 am
Yes, the (C)AGW has always been a capitalist bandwagon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Banking (Fractional Reserve and Fiat Debt-based Currency) has ALWAYS been FRAUD. It has nothing to do with capitalism which is investing REAL wealth and sweat to create more wealth and trading for same.
Bankers sucker the Socialists into thinking they are ‘Capitalists’ and the ‘Enemy’ ti divert attention from the fraud. Kick out the bankers and their Fractional Reserve and Fiat Debt-based Currency and every one wins except the Fraudsters aka bankers, financiers, politicians and rent-seeking/political favor-seeking corporations that would collapse under pressure from small and mid sized businesses because of the ineffieceny.
See Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1995/07/dwaynes-world
For a good example of how the corporatism actually works.