Should Lord Stern remember some economics?

After Lord Stern’s comments about becoming a vegatarian to save the plant, I suggested he should be consistent and become a vegan. A post by Martin Livermore on the Adam Smith Insitute blog got me thinking that maybe Lord Stern would be advised to remember some lessons from economics. After all, as an economist, Lord Stern was employed to do a cost benefit analysis of tackling global warming. The report was only able to reach its conclusion that we should do something now by taking an extreme view of future temperature change (thus overstating the benefits of any remedy) and seriously understating the costs. Mostly this was by failing to apply an appropriate rate of discount to future costs and benefits.

Since then Lord Stern has become increasingly alarmist. If instead, he applied some of the tools of his profession he would conclude the following.

 

1. Most of the largest greenhouse gas producers are things that have an inelastic demand – such as petrol and fuel to heat one’s home. Therefore the costs will tend to exceed the benefits.

 

2. There are diminishing returns to emissions reductions. Small decreases can be achieved easily. At home most can save a bit by better insulation in the loft, or by turning town the thermostat by 1 degree. Car fuel consumption can be reduced by driving more economically. Bigger savings are less easy, without fundamental changes in lifestyle, which for the majority would mean a significant drop in living standards. For instance,

- switching from frozen and chilled foods to dried and tinned foods.

- switching foreign holidays to camping in the back garden.

- From travelling by car to work to spending three times as long going by public transport, or catching pneumonia cycling.

 

3. Large government projects tend to overrun on costs, and under-perform on benefits. The bigger and more idealistic the project, the larger the (proportionate) discrepancy between plan and outcome. International projects tend to overrun more than national one, as consensus is only achieved by compromise fudging. For the greatest trans-government project of all time, this risk alone should lead to the complete abandonment.

 

4. Complex models tend to fail most in their forecasting when you need them most. Consensus economic forecasts made in 2006 for 2009 would have predicted growth, not biggest slump since the 1930s. Yet compared to economic, climatology is more complex and still in its infancy as a subject. Further there is no competitive market in forecasting to encourage improvement and revision in the light of new data. In economics reputable  forecasting is a valuable commodity. In Climate Science, one is paid to agree with the consensus.

Should Lord Stern now go Vegan?

According to the Times, Lord Stern has gone Vegetarian in an attempt to save the planet. The simple reason is that methane (which cattle and pigs produce in vast quantities) is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. We therefore need to cut back drastically on the quantity of cattle. But hold on a minute. We also get milkfrom cows as well. Should we be switching to Soya milk and synthetic cheese? Lord Stern

“predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”

So when the eco-fanatics start attacking the meat counter of Tescos and sabotaging the school milk deliveries, we will know who to charge with incitement to commit acts of criminal damage and terrorism. Make a change from them dumping manure and sabotaging tyres ot 4×4s.

Manure dumpers a product of Climate Change Extremism

The dumping of manure on Jeremy Clarkson’s lawn is another example of using intimidation is silence the critics. Just like those who vandalise 4×4 cars in Manchester, they are the product of taking an extreme line on Global Warming.

They are the outcome of a process of

1. The emission of greenhouse gases by humans will theoretically raise global temperatures by maybe 0.5 to 1.0 degrees this century. This seems to correlate with the temperature data of the past century, though it is not a complete explanation.

2. Bodies like the UNIPCC then assume that there will be a positive feedback loop. The computer models project with that small rise in temperatures will increase the water vapour in upper atmosphere. As this is over 95% of greenhouse gas, a small increase will lead to large rises in temperature. So the forecast churned out by those models is around 2 to 4 degrees.

3. The climatologists then assume that the data collected is unbiased, is accurate and the recent warming is a unique feature. Therefore the results have a high level of confidence and explanatory power.

4. This is then dressed up with appropriate political spin and certainty. They claim a scientific consensus. whilst denouncing those who reject it as having impure motives, or being deranged, or simply people beyond the pale.

5. The seriousness of the impending climate change enhanced by dire predictions of the consequences for the human race and for other species. Probable benefits of a slight warming and higher CO2 levels are never considered,

6. The UK government (along with others) responds by setting draconian reduction targets.

7. Environmental groups, like the Green Party, look at the most extreme predictions, then say it does not go far enough and want yet more draconian targets.

8. This gives the fanatical, morally self-righteous (e.g. Green Fist, Plane Stupid and Climate Rush) who want to commit puerile acts of vandalism and intimidation, dressed up as saving the planet.

9. The perpetrators of these acts then decide to take matters further, going beyond their remit. In this case of the 4×4 vandals, slashing car tyres, instead of just letting them down.

 

The extreme acts are as a consequence of the extreme case portrayed in the media. We need to pause, and consider the evidence. A more balanced view would be that the case is more nuanced, and that any further warming is likely is be small.

Climate Change Camp – for good or evil?

The Tax Payers alliance have a posting on the Climate Change Camp set up in Blackheath.

 

Here is my comment:-

 

The comment you make is a fair one. Before proscribing a painful and potentially harmful course of treatment, an ethical doctor would

-         check the diagnosis is accurate – both in type and to the extent.

-         Make sure that the treatment is likely to improve the condition of the patient.

In a similar vein

-         The assessment of the extent of the climate change is not helped by failing to examine validity of the data or statistical analysis.

-         Nor by ignoring contrary science.

-         Nor by ascribing every bit of extreme weather to anthropogenic factors.

-         Nor by ignoring the benefits of warming (e.g. less old people dying in the winter cold)

-         Nor by assuming that a global policy is both the best available and that it will improve the situation.

-         Nor by ignoring the harmful effects of oppressive taxes and regulation. You could reduce economic output and bankrupt the government. This could lead to the collapse of public services (with many dying as a consequence) and millions permanently unemployed. In the emerging nations, reduced output will lead to the mass hunger from which many have just escaped. It will also lead to an increase in wars.

 

To establish that climate change is the “biggest threat the world has known” needs substantiation. In the last century the cause of every major famine was either caused authoritarian government policies or by war. On the other hand, global growth ensured that, for the first time in human history, the vast majority of the worlds population can live free from hunger as a normal state of affairs, and each generation can look forward to better livings standards than their parents. For those who believe in peace and helping the poor should make sure that these achievements are not reversed.

Green Party Manipulates the Data AGAIN

 

I posted last month that the Green Party could not analyse data on it’s core competency – tackling climate change. Yesterday, (June 2^nd) they released the results of an opinion poll for tomorrow’s European elections. They are forecast to get 15% of the votes. Political Betting’s opinion is that

 

“The poll was not past vote weighted which generally means that the sample would not have been politically balanced.”

 

Compare the results to a two other polls – a Yougov poll for the Telegraph released today for 4^th June edition, and an ICM poll released by the Guardian on 1^st June.

 

	Cons	Labour	LibDem	UKIP	Green	BNP
YouGov / Telegraph	26	16	15	18	10	5
Comres for Green Party	24	22	14	17	15	2
ICM / Guardian	29	17	20	10	11	5

 

The results of the bias are to push the Green vote much higher.  This is clearly a campaigning tool.

 It is crucial for anyone who adopts an extreme position to analyse data as honestly as they can. That way they can build a position that can be trusted. The Green Party does not do this with its policy analysis any more than it does it with opinion polls. They back up the commonly held view that the term “extremist” is synonymous with “dangerous crank”.   

Attack on 4×4s by Eco-Fanatics – The Causes

This weeks South Manchester Reporter (28/05/09) carrys the following report on Page 11 (not online)

Eco-vandals target another 80 4×4s

“Environmental activists attoacked scores of 4×4 vehicles -leaving messages on the windscreems accusing owners of adding to global warming”

“The attacks, across Chorlton, Fallowfield and Whalley Range, follow two similar incidents over the last month. Tyres on 20 vehicles were slashed or let down overnight in the Ladybarn and Withington areas last week. And the tyreson 11 cars were also slashed or let down on Ladybarn, Withington and Disbury last month.

“A statement from the activists said tyres were deflated rather than slashed. It added: “Given the threat of climate change and the government’s inaction, direct action such as this is, unfortunately necessary. Large SUVs emit substantially more greenhouse gases.”"

The Manchester Evening News (owner of the South Manchester Reporter) ran the story, as did the Daily Mail, on 25^th May, the Herald on 28^th May  and the Independent on 23^rd May

The Independent contained the following

Detective Inspector Damian Moran, from Greater Manchester Police, said: “Those responsible might believe they are making a point, but this behaviour is criminal.

“It is mindless vandalism with no regard for the distress and nuisance caused to decent members of our community and will not be tolerated.

DI Moran is slightly in error in this. It is a modern form of political protest, aimed at intimidation.  It is the outcome of the way that the whole global warming climate change agenda is going. To substantiate this, consider the sequence.

1. The emission of greenhouse gases by humans will theoretically raise global temperatures by maybe 0.5 to 1.0 degrees this century. This seems to correlate quite closely with the temperature data of the past century

2. Bodies like the UNIPCC then assume that there will be a positive feedback loop. The computer models project with that small rise in temperatures will increase the water vapour in upper atmosphere. As this is over 95% of greenhouse gas, a small increase will lead to large rises in temperature. So the forecast churned out by those models is around 2 to 4 degrees.

3. The climatologists then assume that the data collected is unbiased, and the recent warming is a unique feature. Therefore the results have a high level of confidence and explanatory power.

4. This is then dressed up with appropriate political spin and certainty, whilst denouncing those who reject it as having impure motives or being deranged or out of order.

5. The UK government (along with others) responds by setting draconian reduction targets.

6. Environmental groups, like the Green Party, look at the worst most extreme predictions then say it does not go far enough and want yet more draconian targets.

7. This gives the fanatical, morally self-righteous (e.g. Green Fist, Plane Stupid) who want to commit puerile acts of vandalism, dressed up as saving the planet.

8. The perpetrators of these acts then decide to take matters further, going beyond their remit. In this case, slashing car tyres instead of just letting them down.

Where will this end? Snatching babies bottles, as they contain dairy products? Vandalising the homes of those who have their heating too high? I will not suggest more obvious examples. This whipping up of hatred is a common feature of human history, whether the crusades, the post-reformation Calvinsim, Marxist revolutionaries or German anti-semitism. It has no place in pluralistic, liberal democracies, nor in advanced societies who want to benefit from science.