Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Huffington Post is worried that faltering faith in the field of Economics, whose experts spectacularly failed to predict the 2008 crash and the post Brexit economic boom, might spill over into skepticism about predictions of climate driven economic collapse.
With Economics In Disarray, It’s Time To Rethink Climate Change
We heard this week that the economics profession is in crisis. The inability to foresee the 2008 financial crisis and mis-judgments about the impact of the Brexit vote mean economics has lost the trust of politicians and the public.
If indeed economics as a science and way of seeing and understanding the world has had its day, then we quickly need to work out what that means for our ideas about dealing with climate change. Because make no mistake, economics has dominated and defined our understanding of climate change in exactly the same way economics has dominated and defined every other area of our lives.
That’s the reason why the Stern Review on Climate Change (written by Nicholas Stern, an economist) received such wide covered upon its publication in 2006, becoming ‘the reference work for politicians and green campaigners‘. Here at last was someone telling us what to do, and telling us in the only language that mattered – economics. None of that hippy ‘going to live in caves’ nonsense. No doom and gloom. Instead the Review ‘considers the economic costs of the impacts of climate change, and the costs and benefits of action to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause it’. The ultimate objective of climate policy was to ensure climate change did not damage economic growth.
…
What is needed instead is a way of engaging with climate change which is built from the bottom-up and speaks to the values, experience, hopes and concerns of everyday life. It is about showing the connections between a future which benefits the many, not just the few, with the possibility of a good quality of life that can be shared by all without ruining the quality of life for subsequent generations.
…
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/chris-shaw/climate-change-economics_b_13984596.html
When I worked with merchant bankers, the bankers never attempted to use their economic and trading models to predict the future, because they knew that didn’t work – bitter experience taught them that their painstakingly constructed economic models had no predictive skill. Instead, they used the models to try to understand the present, to try to detect weaknesses in the structure of their portfolios.
Only in academia and government, where nobody faces consequences for failure, do you find people who are stupid enough to believe they know what is going to happen.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Economics models to try to understand the present.
To better understand politics and history would that be, “Follow the money.”? 😎
Anybody here remember LTCM – stock symbol for a hedge fund management firm named Long Term Capital Management?
AND do you recall their primary, driving modus operandi in performing trades and doing business?
Whom did they employ – do you recall that too?
Yes to the first two questions. No to (or I dont understand) the third question.
Quoting Investopedia: long-term capital management (LTCM) was a large hedge fund led by Nobel Prize-winning economists and renowned Wall Street traders
Oh, yeah, I did know that, or at least I remember it now!
The 1997 Nobel Laureates Myron Scholes and Robert Merton with the Black-Sholes model, a model to determine the value of derivatives and options. So a year or two after they won, LTCM crashed and burned using their model. 16 banks and the Federal Reserve had to step in to save them because of the derivative exposure. I think Sholes slunk back to the Univ of Chicago but dont hold me to it.
“What is needed instead is a way of engaging with climate change which is built from the bottom-up and speaks to the values, experience, hopes and concerns of everyday life. It is about showing the connections between a future which benefits the many, not just the few, with the possibility of a good quality of life that can be shared by all without ruining the quality of life for subsequent generations.”
Climate double-speak par excellence. They are still on “climate communication” for the masses. They still think if they can only dumb things down enough, and put just enough lipstick and just the right shade on the climate pig, that they can sell it. Because people are dumb, right? It’s just about finding the right sales pitch to get people to buy their “climate” product. Hope springs eternal with them, even as the SS Warmatanic pitches its bow into the air before its final descent into oblivion.
Perhaps Mr. Shaw is related to George Bernard Shaw, who quipped, “If all the economists were laid end to end, they’d never reach a conclusion.”
Trump calls Huff Post a shit sheet, lmao!
It is.
The Economics of Climate Science will be understood in more detail by Climate Scientists, when Trump cuts their funding. Some of them will have to do something useful to get paid.
Events, dear boy, events.
The climate change hoax served a purpose. It defined who the bed wetter’s are ,who like bigger government , and those with massive egos who actually believe that by tweaking a trace gas beneficial to life on earth humans are going to control the climate to some little cliques liking . (UN Serial Conference Goers ) .
It also proved governments would not only facilitate the massive rip off of tax payers they would condone the outright lying to children in order to indoctrinate them into supporting a fraud .
It was always about the money that served as the lubricant to remove cash from peoples wallets in the form of taxes or debt as well as separate some scientists from applying the scientific method to their work .
Apparently climate changes … who knew ? It’s warming thankfully . Enjoy the ride while it lasts .
Krugman – Keynes
You need not know any two other words to understand the concept of failed economic policies……
Focus on Feelings:
I feel, like, y’know, like, really COLD!
If economics was a science, we wouldn’t have different “Schools of Economics.” How many “Schools of Physics” do we have?
Bingo.
Oh, ouch!
Economics is very much like…oh….Climate Change! Complex, multiple, almost endlessly variable inputs and feedbacks, poorly understood…and yet the basis of an industry that employs thousands of great minds and computer time to produce analyses and prognostications. It eats up a terrific amount of money to talk about money, just like AGW produces a lot of hot air talking about hot air. Very little value ( probably negative growth) is produced by either.
“How many “Schools of Physics” do we have?”
1. Standard Model
2. String Theory
Maybe others.
As john harmsworth – above – indicates, we probably have a score of “Schools of Climate warming – no, Change- no, Disruption”
And, as he also indicates, the net result is hot air.
# Which, I suppose, will add, infinitesimally, to Gore-Bull Whatsit . . . .
“Very little value ( probably negative growth) is produced by either.”
Spot on, john.
Auto.
Climate is, accept it;and we can affect it only at the margins.
Urban Heat Islands – yes. Of course, but do they affect 1% of the planet’s surface??
I know, that they may affect 10 – or 20 – percent of our temperature readings . . . .
Another story.
trust the California ‘weather’ is not too bad.
But absolute – absolute – proof of CAGW, of course.
#Like the shower we had today in Croydon South. And the sunshine in the Orkneys.
Etcetera, etcetera.
This is another attempt to install a command economy. There is nothing wrong with a market economy that has some safeguards against people like Bernie, which wouldn’t have happened if the SEC was doing its job. The problem is government squeezing the life out out of people. That’s what the EU was doing. The crash in 2008 had everything to do with housing. It was a gold mine for managers firing people who would loose their homes. Here we will help you, we will buy your house for the mortgage left, and flip it ! We will pick up the increased value and the 20% you put down plus whatever you paid into it. They can’t do that? Yes they can. It’s private money. The government sold people a pair of rose colored glasses. Health care in name only. They couldn’t have designed a worse health care system. Who did that ? The government. We’ll pass the law first, then see what it’s about.
Command economies don’t work.
Just as we have witnessed the theory of dark matter and dark energy, it is time we recognize that we are in the midst of Dark Warming caused by Dark Climate Change. This unobservable but highly theorized force of nature has been shown to be the cause of 98% of all climate we observe. Scientists are unanimous in this force to explain so many strange phenomena that leaves them in awe such as rain, melting ice, and dying old polar bears.
As for Keynesian economics (with its “sticky prices”) …
VISCOUS THINKING
by Max Photon
Big fools have little fools
Who feed on their “lucidity”
And little fools have lesser fools
And so on to stupidity.
In spite of so many scientific works-made on the basis of models, assumptions, measurement, and who knows what else, to date there is no real evidence of who caused climate change on our planet. Each of these articles carries little hint of the real causes, but it is only one dot in relation to the overall picture of these causes.
Once again I have to, again, draw the attention of everyone involved in this research, that almost all new way to deceive “knowing” the truth, using models and mathematics. Almost no one uses logic and consciousness, which are associated with the “warehouse” of all causes and knowledge of the true causes of any phenomenon.
If using logic and natural law, then it must reject the assertion that climate change and global warming resulting from human factors.
Climate changes are the consequences of interaction between the planet and the sun. But how ? That you should explore !!
Here, my help: change the magnetic fields of the planets and their variations caused by changes in temperature and planets themselves and their wrappers. Again, I should know how and why. If anyone is interested, we can bring about discussion.
If this does not happen, it means that everyone staying in positions for which no truth can get more money than the truth. Why? Therefore, the truth is one and few believed in it. There is much more money on combinatorics unknown quantities, as used by “experts” who have given today and wrote several million “evidence, valued at approximately $ 45 billion in the last 20 years (around 2 billion). Only set, and I submit that millions of not stating the truth, because you will lose profits if the truth wins
It’s all about “feelings” anyway and not about science. Therefore surrender your standard of living and your car out of the abundance of caution. Also surrender your march to energy independence in order to maintain an emergency status at all times or when the next significant growth occurs to produce any trace of shortage.