From the Institute for Energy Research:
…
It is this second class of models, the economic/climate hybrids called Integrated Assessment Models, that Pindyck discusses. Pindyck’s paper is titled, “Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us?” Here is his shocking answer, contained in the abstract:
Very little. A plethora of integrated assessment models (IAMs) have been constructed and used to estimate the social cost of carbon (SCC) and evaluate alternative abatement policies. These models have crucial flaws that make them close to useless as tools for policy analysis: certain inputs (e.g. the discount rate) are arbitrary, but have huge effects on the SCC estimates the models produce; the models’ descriptions of the impact of climate change are completely ad hoc, with no theoretical or empirical foundation; and the models can tell us nothing about the most important driver of the SCC, the possibility of a catastrophic climate outcome. IAM-based analyses of climate policy create a perception of knowledge and precision, but that perception is illusory and misleading. [Bold added.]
For those unfamiliar with academic prose, such inflammatory language is almost unheard-of, particularly for a politically sensitive topic such as climate change economics. Pindyck is here reaching the exact same conclusion that I gave in my recent testimony before Senator Barbara Boxer and other members of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee: The computer models used by the Obama Administration’s Working Group to estimate the so-called “social cost of carbon” should not be the basis of federal policy.
…
“Any Result One Desires”
In my testimony, I said the “economist can produce just about any estimate of the social cost of carbon desired.” Pindyck reaches the same conclusion in his paper when he writes:
And here we see a major problem with IAM-based climate policy analysis: The modeler has a great deal of freedom in choosing functional forms, parameter values, and other inputs, and different choices can give wildly different estimates of the SCC and the optimal amount of abatement. You might think that some input choices are more reasonable or defensible than others, but no, “reasonable” is very much in the eye of the modeler. Thus these models can be used to obtain almost any result one desires. [Pindyck p. 5, bold added.]
…
Full story: http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/08/12/scathing-mit-paper-blasts-obamas-climate-models/
The paper is here:
Click to access Climate-Change-Policy-What-Do-the-Models-Tell-Us.pdf
Mike Maguire on August 14, 2013 at 4:47 pm
The “Butterfly effect” is linked to the Chaos theory. Apparently, no “scientist” (snake oil dealer) in the AGW camp have any knowledge regarding this! (or even heard of it …?)
” hand picked but completely nonsensical parameters”
Like the decline of piracy correlated to the rise of temperature, as postulated by the Pastafarian Church of the flying Spaghetti Monster,
Under that paradigm, the rise in Somalian piracy would account for the recent slump in warming…
“” But mine goes to 11. ” – Sorry but a Spinal Tap reference just seems so appropriate :)”
Arghh — TRM beat me to it! 🙂
My line was going to be: “But THESE models go to 11.”
Janice Moore says:
August 14, 2013 at 4:58 pm
“Why do you say that Mark XR took ‘the bait and swallowed it whole?’”
“Mark XR says:
August 14, 2013 at 3:10 pm”
Mark XR quoted the ‘throwaway’ last paragraph of Pindyck’s paper which seems to support the alleged CO2CAGW threat. So I thought Mark was chastising us for not reading the paper – when he said, “I guess one could read the paper” – which concluded with a pro-CO2CAGW paragraph despite the paper’s substance as summarized in the Abstract.
Maybe I took it incorrectly because Mark XR has decidedly not supported the AGW ‘threat’ in other posts which I just haven’t seen? Otherwise, I see it as a pro-AGW “out of context”/pro-“consensus” tactic.
Alas, poor Yorek. Great minds! #[:)]
*************************
Nicely stated about the Precautionary Principle fallacy, David M. Hoffer. A favorite of con artist marketers around the world.
Hm. That reminds me….. [wink] I own some shares in Acme App, Corp.. I think I’ll write a little “research” piece about how apps can save the planet. See if I can get the Guardian or Reader’s Digest to publish it……. Let’s see now, AAC has a “Best Latte Stand” app…. I’ll tell people they’ll save gas, thus, CO2, thus the planet, by not having to drive all over the place looking for a deal…. aaaand there’s the “How Cool Am I” app that takes the temperature of your pocket……… LOL.
Hi, J. Peden,
Good for you to be willing to stand corrected. Well, only Mark XR knows! Here you and I stand, talking politely about it. Well, he could have used a “cough” or a [;)] and prevented this whole mess. Men! Why can’t they learn to communicate! JUST KIDDING. Some women are terrible communicators and many men are great at it. Yes, yes, I know. Men have better things to do with their time. [:)]
Vive la difference! (and, really, there ARE some trends, I think…..)
Your (very talkative) Truth in Science Ally,
Janice
Waaaait, just one minute! LOL, I assumed you are a man!! Sorry (if you are not). No, I’m not going to rewrite this post, and here I go to click on “Post Comment”………………
Steven Mosher says:
August 14, 2013 at 6:37 pm
these are not climate models.
just so you know.
_———————————-
True,,, but the effective level of accuracy is no different.
The question would be,,, how do the policy imacts of such differ?
Think about it>
davidmhoffer says:
August 14, 2013 at 7:06 pm
“The Precautionary Principle is a ruse to make the nonsensical appear logical.”
Amen. That’s why its proponents intentionally don’t mention a good old “cost-benefit” analysis, or an analysis comparing the effects of an alleged disease to the effects of its alleged cure. The “mainstream” Climate Scientists haven’t even proven yet that GW/AGW would produce a net disease-state.
According to the PP, each of the precautions would also have to be subjected to the PP, and so on unto infinity; and as Michael Crichton pointed out, the PP has to be subjected to itself. No one would be able to figure out if they should get out of bed in the morning, or not.
@Janice Moore:
“Waaaait, just one minute! LOL, I assumed you are a man!! Sorry (if you are not)”
I’d be sorry, too. But lately I have indeed been made aware by Pres. Obama , along with the bad service I get at restaurants, that I am almost certainly a Black Man, not a White one as I had previously thought.
The only thing that doesn’t fit, according to Obama’s criteria, is his allegation that women hold their breath whenever a black male gets on an elevator with them. But maybe he meant “breasts”? Because I’ve certainly seen that one!
What a foul despicable mob.
I have nothing but contempt for anyone that works in a university or knowledge college anywhere in the world.
Oh, brother, J. Peden. lol, Well, your post certainly made clear beyond a doubt that you are male.
Unfortunately, Pindyck is only halfway there – if that far. He may have the economics right (maybe, though I’m not entirely convinced that he really gets it), and the value of the models right, but he obviously still doesn’t get it that CO2 isn’t a problem. And his continuing to buy into the CO2 meme will be the only part of his comments that gets attention. It will be more of, “See? They DO agree with AGW!!”
@J Peden – If you think about it, the alarmies violate the PP because they haven’t taken the necessary precautions to be sure that they are correct in their mantra. Violating the PP is inherent in it.
As an aside to your earlier remark, Miss Moore, I will remind you that “being talkative” IS a survival trait that has very real “evolutionary” reasoning. For some portions of the population that is.
Lettuce take two types of people, for example.
Arbitrarily and randomly, I will assign one group a child-caring mode, requiring intensive and near-constant ability to be able to see, and be seen by!, young human-type people of both groups. Further, lettuce image such a group being frequently employed in food-gathering of – say – fruits, nuts, berries, and the like. Such fruit, nuts, and berries and things are also a favored food of larger predators – meat-eaters such as cave bears and other dangerous herbivores such as moose, deer, elk, and rams, etc. Note that those types of animals (both predators and all very large and dangerous when trapped or themselves threatened) are frightened by irregular and near-constant noise and commotion. Further, notice that small children, knowing that “noise = safety” themselves are safer when the surrounding “group” of constant noisemakers frighten off dangerous threats. Hence, the noisy-but-safer group tends to get more food, have more children survive to become breeding adults, and are themselves able to have more future children.
The silent, non-communicative, brooding solitaire member of a “gathering group ” isolated off by itself trying to grab berries or fruit will simply get eaten by an unseen predator. Or fall into a hole and break a leg. Or not see a bee/wasp/snake/scorpion and get bitten. Or strain an ankle become less able to gather food. Or lose the child who cannot find the “silent isolated one” when the child needs help. Or food. Or water. Or whatever.
Lettuce invent a second “group” of people, and charge them with a task of “hunter” or “protector” of the (larger talkative) group. THAT group of people, regardless of race or gender, MUST be self-controlled and self-sufficient and QUIET for long periods of time. Does a sentry need to be loud and talking to a fellow sentry? No. Rather a sentry or hunter MUST be quiet and observing things, but NOT talking about what has happened now or in the future. That sentry or hunter, however WILL attack and silence even a fellow member of the “hunting group” who is making unnecesay noise and commotion or distractions and movement.
Survival, then, promotes self-sufficiency and silence and controlled but accurate and violent aggression. No aggression, no controlled violence, no food. No food, no life for the hunter or the family of the hunter.
However, notice also that, ONCE AWAY from the hunt itself, that same self-sufficiency and silence MUST be discarded and the successes of the hunt MUST be advertised so to say in public and very visibly. If the hunting group were to be silent then – at the camp fire or supper table – the family and mates and POTENTIAL mates of the “hunting group” will not know WHO did the right thing and who DID control their violence and aggression and who brought home food, and who screwed up and scared away game.
So, being talkative and preferring “group social modes”, or being quiet and isolated but aggressive, are only two simple means of survival.
Thus these models can be used to obtain almost any result one desires.
A manager is hiring for a position in the home office for which he is interviewing three candidates.
The first applicant is an accountant. The manager asks, “What does 2+2 equal?”
The accountant replies, “With arithmetic certainty I can tell you that 2+2 equals 4.”
The second applicant is a statistician. Again the manager asks, “What does 2+2 equal?”
The statistician replies, “I can state with 95% confidence that 2+2 equals 4.”
The third applicant is an economist. The manager asks the same question.
The economist leans in close to the manager, glances over both shoulders and asks, “What do you want it to equal?”
“Eliza says:
August 14, 2013 at 2:41 pm”
I am not so sure it’s as clear cut as that. Rudd and Abbott have both stated that they will not negotiate with minority parties. And simply because they have said that you know they will try to strike deals with minority parties if they want to secure power. A re-run of 2010 under Gillard. While Abbott promises to abolish the price on carbon (CT) to “reduce the costs of living”, Rudd(erless) also has promised to do the same with the CT and move to an ETS earlier than planed to “reduce the costs of living”.
Abbott has what they call a “direct action” plan, the cost of this plan is not fully known as far as I can tell. It’s equally flawed as the CT and ETS and a blatant waste of energy, effort and tax. There is currently an AU$10bil “green fund”. I don’t see many green projects happening in Australia at the moment. Here in Sydney the region needs another airport ideally located in the west. The cost of this much needed infrastructure would be about AU$3bil…and we’re wasting taxes on windmills and solar panels. Roll on September 7th.
Well, R. A. Cook, while I have yet to see any evidence that we evolved from another species, I think your ideas are fairly sound.
I’ve commented to girlfriends on hikes in the mountains (where black bear or mountain lions live), almost exactly what you said: “You know, it’s good we women talk a lot. Bears and cougars would rather not confront people if they can help it and our talking lets them know we’re here. I’ll bet more men are killed in the woods because they just walk along not talking and bears attack them because they feel cornered.” Or something like that. LOL.
Thanks for the fun discussion!
BTW, if I recall correctly, a couple of months ago you were bummed out because it was raining on a camping trip with your grandchildren in Georgia. I’ll bet ya’ll had a great time indoors laughing and playing games (and eating fun food) anyway. How’d that trip turn out?
And I hope it will not lower me in your estimation (how could it?? LOL, now, now) that (whisper: I really prefer Ms. Moore). Why did you not think it was Mrs.? Hm? Too goofy for any man to not run for the hills after 10 minutes, eh? #[:)]
@NoFixedAddress
I work at a couple of universities… What is your point exactly?
We have reviewed so many papers that we have developed a strong sense of smell – powerful it is I assure you. We have read the clever clichés and endured the weasel words and rebuffed the purveyors of snake oil time and again.
Let’s do the math. Thirty $ a ton. How many gigatons? It’s about thirty, actually. So it comes to an unwarranted tax of roughly one trillion dollars a year if we all buy into the precaution, sorry, “insurance”. I am wondering how the global economy can generate that much additional value just to service what amounts to an insurance scheme.
Large organizations like municipalities don’t get much insurance, say, for vehicles because it is cheaper to act as their own insurance schemes. I think the planet should tell the salesmen with the carpet bags to try their luck with the next planet ’cause we’re not interested.
For a talk discussing the general problem, not limited to climate, see:
http://oxlib.org.uk/2013/01/video-of-david-friedmans-lecture/
DirkH says:
August 14, 2013 at 3:12 pm
////////////////////////
The British pay more, but it is not well known and has not been properly examined by the MSM.
Some months ago, the head of Scottish & Southern Energy (one of the 6 big energy suppliers in the UK) was interviewed on Hardtalk by the BBC. He clearly stated that the cost of supplying electricity only accounted for about 50% of the electricity bill, the other 50% being made up of subsidies for renewables and government policy incentives such as subsidies for loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, helping those in fuel poverty.
I do not know what the average UK electricity bill is, but if it is circa £500, people in the UK are already needlessly paying about £250 pa because of the present energy policy.
Gas is slightly different. It does not presently include the same costs associated with renewables (eg., subsidies given to windfarms, solar, additional feed in tarrififs subsidies for solar, subsidies given to operators of diesel standby generators), however probably about 20% of the bill relates to government policy for assistance with modern energy efficient boiler replacements, loft insulation, cavity wall insulation and assistance for those in fuel poverty.
The average dual use bill is said to be about £1450, so if average electricity usage is £500, then average gas will be about £950. So if about 20% of this bill is made up with government policy charges (as detailed above) then up to about £200 of the gas bill represents the costs of subsidies given to other people to upgrade their boilers, insulate their houses and help those in fuel poverty.
This means that already in the UK, the average consumer is paying about £450 more than they need to, and more than would be the case but for government energy policy decisions implemented these past 10 years or so. In passing, I would pointout that there would be far less people in fuel poverty but for this needless expense and therefore there would be far less need to help people in fuel poverty.
The amount people will be paying is due to radically increase. First because the UK has introduced a carbon tax presently set at £16 per tonne (but scheduled to quickly escalate to 350 per tonne) and second because all the additional costs incidental to unreliable wind and additional costs of connecting wind to the grid are about to kick in big time, and third, if the UK goes nuclear since suppliers of nuclear are intent on screwing the government because the government has distorted the energy market and has desimated the capacity to supply reliable base load energy, and the nuclear suppliers are intent on milking this situation for all they can such that going nuclear will now be very expensive.
The government has distorted the energy market so badly that no one will build any kind of power generator without being paid some form of subsidy. This applies accross the board, whether it is wind, biomass, gas, nuclear, or standby diesel generator. Utter madness.
All of this means that bills will escalate rapidly in the future and are likely to nearly double by 2020 unless this madness is reigned in and/or unless there is a push for shale (with no carbon usage tax) and the UK gets a glut of gas (unlikely within the next 7 to 10 years).
Increasing fuel poverty looks a dead certainty for those living in the UK.
I have not read all those posts, but I would point out that the policy of so called mitigation is not at all akin to an insurance policy, either for the insurer nor for the insured.
A policy of insurance does not seek to mitigate risk. It pays out compensation if and only if an insured event takes place and that event causes loss to the insured. In those limited circumstances, the actual loss (or some part of it) can be reccovered by the insured.
The reality is that no one knows the following:
1. Whether manmade CO2 emissions causes warming, and if so is this to any significant extent;
2. Whether further and future warming will be harmful, and if so to what significant extent
3. Whether the steps taken to mitigate will limit the amount of future and further warming, and if so whether this will be to any significant extent.
4. Whether the steps taken to mitigate will limit the harmful effects of any future and further warming, and if so whether this will be to any significant extent.
Coupled to this, it appears that global warming is not a global event. It appears that it is a local or regional phenomena, the effects of which are felt locally, or regionally and not globally. The data suggests that:
(i) Not all countries are warming at the same rate, indeed, it appears that whilst some areas are warming, other areas are not noticeably warming, or are even cooling.
(ii) Warming will be very beneficial for many countries. Those in far northern climes (such as Canada, Skandinavia, parts of Russia etc) would greatly benefit from several degrees of warming. For example Canada could replace the States as the wheat/grain basket of the world.
(iii) Many countries would not be adversely effected by sea level rise such as Switzerland and others that have limited exposure to rise in levels of the Atlantic, Pacific, Indian oceans and/or those by virtue of their topography can accomade many metres of sea level rise without undue hardship (e., Norway with its Fjord coast line with cliffs rising up many 100s of metres)
(iv) Food production is on the up, whether due to increased temperatures, extended growing seasons, more CO2 in the atmosphere or a combination of all the foregoing.
Insurance is more akin to adaption than to mitigation, and if the insurance analogy held true it would pay out only if there was future warming which was harmful and which required action to deal with the harm that was resluting.
The sensible policy is adaption not mitigation since adaption works in all scenarios and is targetted.
Mitigation only works if CO2 is the temperature control knob, and if climate sensitivity is high, and if the majority of the recent rise in CO2 is due to manmade emissions, and if policies to mitigate actually result in meaningful reductions in manmade CO2 emissions. Even then it is a failure, if such future warming that would otherwise have occurred would not in fact have been harmful. It is counter productive in circumstances where such future warming that would otherwise have occurred would in practice have been a net beneficial event.
The problem with the precautionary principle is that it fails to identify the real catastrophic event, neamely that we spend trillions of dollars on mitigation measures only to find out that the steps we take to mitigate are in effective because say CO2 does not control temperature, and there is future unabated warming (whether due to natural variation or due to other manmade activities such as change of land use) and this future warming is harmful such that we now need to spend trillions of dollars on adaption but we are unable to do so since (i) we have bankrupted the developed nations so they no longer have the financuial capital to spend, and (ii) we have desimated their industrial capacity so that they can no longer mobilise the industrial might required to carry out adaption, and (iii) the undeveloped nations remain n their present backwaters because we prevented themn from properly developing because of our insistence that they should not be allowed to use coal etc to generate electricity and industrialise.
What will we do in that scenario. We think that we hold the ace (and playing that is the precautionary principle) but the ace can be struck down by the lowly 2 of trumps.
Adaption is the sensible policy since one sees the cards before making a decision of what and how to play. .
But skeptics are the flat earthers.
@ur momisugly Mark XR says:
August 14, 2013 at 3:10 pm,
The problem is this: The paper’s conclusion, that we should spend money we don’t have for a low probability problem that we cannot quantify, is not supported by the paper’s findings. It is simply an editorial post hoc assertion.
Oh, how exciting, another free markets advocacy group (right wing think tank, if you prefer) with research in its name whose only research is copious jibber-jabber misconstruing science misconstrues a scientific (or anyway, economic) paper. One wonders why climate “skeptics” are increasingly fringe. It’s a mystery!
Actually, reading the caption for the image “Knobs for climate control” made me chuckle a bit. Knob(s) is a slang word used as an insult typically in English speaking countries meaning anything from uncool person to, well you can use your imagination (Or Google). I can think of a few people who wish to control climate via energy poverty policy, in particular politicians, who’d easily be considered “Knobs”.
Pedantic Old Fart @ur momisugly 14 Aug 4.33 pm replying to Eliza.
Seems POF is a flag waver for the current incompetent mob whose Carbon Tax is costing about 20 to 27 billion dollars whereas the Coalition will cost 7 billion. Importantly the Coalition plan can be abandoned with little upset as the opposition leader stated he will move as the world moves. An out clause. As for the reduction in expenditure it has to happen if we are to avoid long term indebtedness. POF and his ALP know tax and spend but have no concept of growing an economy. Sounds like Obama’s economic disasters doesn’t it? This lot forecast a ridiculous level of profit, spend it before its realised then borrow to make up the shortfall. Sound familiar. All leftist governments do the same. None have experience in the real world of business.