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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ali baba says:
August 15, 2013 at 1:03 am
“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!”
It’s not a mystery why we are a disenfranchised minority.
http://www.globeinternational.org/
There’s simply too much taxpayer money to be squandered on a lavish lifestyle by going with the flow and pretending the globe is heating up; or cooling down; whatever; doesn’t matter; just pretend you SAVE it.
The next GLOBE legislative summit in 2014 will be in MEXICO! Ariba Ariba!
98%99% of climate models say that 97% of climate scientists (and alarmist media) are wrong!“Modelling Climate Alarmism”
http://climatism.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/modelling-climate-alarmism/
“Oh, how exciting, ali baba and his forty
thievesmainstream Climate Scientists says”August 15, 2013 at 1:03 am
Mark XR says:
August 14, 2013 at 3:10 pm
One can think of a GHG abatement policy as a form of insurance:
=========
No. Insurance invests the premiums and pays out in the case of a loss. Who will get paid out if temperatures rise? No one. The insurance premiums will have already been spent, not invested.
GHG abatement is similar to preventing traffic accidents by making driving expensive. Since there is a social cost of traffic accidents, we should tax traffic drivers and thereby reduce the number of people able to afford to drive. As we reduce the number of drivers, this will reduce the number of accidents.
Or, rather than a tax, we could limit the number of miles each person could drive, and people could trade their limits, in an mileage trading scheme. this would also reduce traffic accidents. people could then get credits for mileage they had planned to drive, but didn’t. For example, say you drove to work each day, but instead carpooled or took the bus. You could then get mileage credits for not driving, which could be sold to other people who wanted to drive extra miles.
people that had planned to drive a lot of miles but didn’t could make a rather good income. this would allow a great many people to retire early, based on miles they had planned to drive while working, but had didn’t driven after they lost their jobs.
richard verney says:
August 15, 2013 at 12:27 am
Coupled to this, it appears that global warming is not a global event. It appears that it is a local or regional phenomena
============
Global warming is mostly confined to the Arctic. The Tropics are not warming, neither is Antarctica. Global averaging hides this fact.
This pattern of warming, mostly confined to the Northern Hemisphere, is inconsistent with GHG theory. It is however consistent with a reversal of the cooling of the Little Ice Age, which Climate Science says was mostly limited to the Norther Hemisphere.
Climate Science argues that warming since the Little Ice Age stopped 150 years ago. However, warming of 1 hemisphere and not the other argues that the warming since the LIA has not stopped. It continues to this day, approximately 0.7C per century when averaged globally. On top of this warming is an ocean oscillation that gives us warming and cooling scares every 30 years.
It is the 30 year alternating pattern of warming and cooling that has created the climate scare, because it is artificially magnified by the Climate Science definition of climate as weather averaged over 30 years. Change the definition of climate to weather averaged over 60 years, and global warming/cooling disappears.
davidmhoffer says:
This is the Precautionary Principle as espoused by Jerome Ravetz. It is one of those things that sounds reasonable on the surface. The stakes are high, the decisive information uncertain, therefor it is most logical to pursue the “safe” path, just in case. The problem with this sort of reasoning is that it falls flat on its face the moment we attempt to apply it to all situations instead of just one situation.
Assuming that the “safe path” actually is safe and will even address the specific issue(s) in question. There are plenty of examples where supposed “experts” have made claims about what is “safe” (and or “healthy”) which have turned out to be the exact opposite. With plenty of damage and suffering happening over decades even without the endorsement of governments.
It is important to note that Pindyck’s discussion implies a positive discount rate in the 3-6% range, far in excess of Stern and much closer to the position of Tol. The cost-benefit analysis that would therefore ensue justifies at best a very low CO2 tax for those that believe that CO2 is to be avoided – essentially the position of Pielke Jr. It does not justify huge investments in costly non-fossil energy sources, or any other “transformation” of the economy.
alibaba, instead of dealing with the issues raised simply dismisses the findings by way of political label. As do most true believers. AGW true beleivers will do most anything to avoid actually thinking about findings that challenge their chosen faith.
Tol’s FUND model is an IAM model. He should be showing up soon.
Modelers make something Governments want to buy.Governments world wide are exhausting traditional revenue sources and need huge increases to service themselves first ,expanding programs next and debt servicing to keep a float.The models will say what governments want and right now they want scary warm stories. We are actually all responsible for this mess and throwing rocks back and forth at each other is a waste of time. Special interests ,lobby groups and other rent seekers should be shown the door. Our democracies need to revisit principles that people can value and respect. Global warming won’t even be remembered when the S hits the fan.
The Precautionary Princple is modern rebranding for Let’s Just Burn People We Don’t Like…They Might Be Witches. If someone uses that Precautionary Principle BS line they are out of runway and hope you are as dumb as they think you are.