I know you said “please”, but I will call the public debate on climate as I see it, thank you. I know how you and your compadres in the Global Warming Whatsit would like to spin it. Pity you just made yourselves part of the problem. Your website reads like an inferior version of Anthony Watts’. For all his faults, give me Al Gore any day of the week.

Prof Tol: “Gibbons suggests that statisticians and economists have no relevant expertise on climate science and policy”

Gibbons: “Without Lomborg’s meticulous preparatory work, the “Climategate” red herring – since debunked – might have not been so eagerly swallowed.”

Prof Tol: “Gibbons oddly suggests that Lomborg is behind “climategate””

I think that’s clear enough.

As is Prof Tol’s assertion that “Lomborg can now afford to be more accurate”, which is very reassuring.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/46455cb4-ef39-11de-86c4-00144feab49a.html

Note also that the choice is not between “climate policy” and “no climate policy”. The question is how fast emissions should be reduced, and economists have said many things about that all of which has been ignored (since Bush Sr left office).

The problems with the ETS are well-rehearsed. The main problems are overallocation of permits because the authority to allocate permits was given to the Member States rather than the Commission; and the grandparenting of permits which is essentially a big subsidy to industry. The bureaucracy is needlessly cumbersome. The carousel fraud that is now being investigated was entirely predictable. Seller-beware liability will lead to further fraud.

As a (non-academic) statistician, I have tried to glean what I could from the writings on global warming. While the Royal Statistical Society criticised the methods of the CRU after “Climategate”, the recommended methods do not lead to different results. The case for global warming rests on computer models of the physical mechanisms and, so far, their predictions within limts of error have been borne out. The trends in temperature, Arctic sea ice, carbon dioxide levels and sea level rise all support the theory. At the moment, fitting an explanatory model to temperature based on carbon dioxide levels would not prove anything because simple correlation (like between my age and oil prices) would account for the result.

Since the science is sound (and even if the predictions were off, it would be mad to ignore them), we would naturally expect that governments would make decisions that are rigorously science-based and act according to the best advice. That is where economists come in. As far I know (and is based mostly on reading Krugman), carbon-taxes to make alternative technologies competitive are the accepted market mechanism.

The fact that governments are being wary of this issue arises from a well-funded rearguard action by the coal and oil industries, using the tactics pioneered by the tobacco companies in holding up the banning of tobacco for may years after the evidence was crystal clear. Indeed, in at least one case, an “Institute” set up by the nicotine industry just switched its main theme to climate change.

The fact that public support for action on climate change has dropped has a simpler explanation than Veronica’s: the cold winters in the US and Europe made it hard for anyone to accept global warming at the moment. No matter how often they are told otherwise, people interpret the climate by the daily weather.

However, I have been mainly following this debate in the US. Comes from been more interested in US politics than the boring old EU. However, may Richard could go into more detail about how the ETS departs from the correct economic model for handling coal, oil and the new technologies we need to bring to market to replace them.

But any criticism of Lomborg generates 56 posts (generally defending the loolah and decrying any criticism of him…)

My point is that in the politics of climate change, a small group of climate scientists and the environmental movement have been in the front row of determining what that policy should be, as well as shaping public opinion in support of the options selected, assisted by the mainstream media’s penchant for simplistic analysis and catastrophic scenarios. Economists and statisticians, as well as political scientists and historians, and the valuable critique which they might have supplied on those options, have been scattered further back, with those most inclined to question the prevaling consensus firmly relegated to the back row.

A number of factors, not least the international credit crunch, are causing a shift in public opinion away from prioritising climate change as an issue as well as less stoical public acceptance of solutions that may prove costly to society or may not, when all the evidence is taken into account, be justifiable.

As the politics change, the influence of the high minded morality-based approach of environmentalists will also wane and the opinons of statisticians and economists will loom larger in the political frame. It’s understandable that this waning influence may make people like John Gibbons uncomfortable. But lashing out at every policy critique, and labelling and name-calling anyone who questions a particular interpretation, is hardly wise.

If economists, as you say Richard, have been peripheral in Europe’s climate policy, they have been practically non-existent in the Irish public debate on climate change up to recent times. But we should know enough from our recent history (e.g. nuclear policy) to recognise that an all-embracing public and policy consensus on any environmental issue is not always in our best interests.

Economists have played a central role in climate policy under Bush Sr and again under Obama. Economists have been peripheral in Europe’s climate policy, witnessing the emissions targets and the policy design. Some argue that the European Trading System is a sign of the influence of economists, but no economist would have designed the ETS as it is.

“The problem is not what statisticians or environmental economists say about the options we should take as a society and a community to address climate change; it’s that they have been cut out of the debate for far too long.”

Kindly show how this can be the case. Economists have been all over global warming from Day One, and the solutions are well known.

It is political will that has been lacking.

Still, Bjor Lomborg is a scam artist.

By his own admission, John Gibbons experienced an ‘epiphany’ on climate change a few years ago. Unfortunately, this appears to have turned him into a latter-day Savoranola of sorts, spreading the gospel of climate change catastrophism and dedicated to the destruction of any who might challenge his convictions. It’s fairly obvious that he would like to drag so-called ‘denier’, Richard Tol, to a stake and light a fire under him, though, as far as I know, Tol has devoted most of his working life to the economics of climate change and is internationally respected for his expertise in this area.

In the era of prosperity, climate change ranked high among public concerns. In an era of austerity it has slipped down the public agenda more rapidly than it might otherwise have done. Politically, the boat has gone out for proselytisers like Gibbons. Taxpayers will question public expenditure on climate change policy initiatives much more than they would have done when money appeared to be no object. The problem is not what statisticians or environmental economists say about the options we should take as a society and a community to address climate change; it’s that they have been cut out of the debate for far too long.

This has very much an air of kicking someone who is already down, and that does not sit easily with me.

To Richard’s point about statistics and economics, I agree wtih him completely. While physics is physics, policy and policymakers must be guided by economics, with the constraint that physics may have imposed boundary conditions on the timeframe given to take action.

Regarding the quote from John Kay above, predicting doom won’t get you onto Fox News, or headlines in the Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, or the Australian, but a juicy lie about climate scientists will get you all the coverage you want. So he is only half-right. With the news that some state attorneys from “red” states like Virginia and Texas are going to pursue climate scientists in the courts over the spending of grant funds, one can see that the intrusion of politics into science is leading to most unpleasant consequenes for science in general.

The Economist published some excellent, balanced articles on climate science recently. These were most refreshing after some of the blatant misinformation that had flown around over “Climategate” etc.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15720419

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15719298

Last Dec. Prof. William Reville wrote in the Irish Times: “At the heart of science is the objective search for truth. However, the scientific investigation of climate change may not merit high marks in this respect. The majority and the minority scientific explanations of current climate change are contradictory and both sides loudly accuse each other of dishonesty.

For example, John Gibbons, climate change lobbyist, opened his debate with Prof Ian Plimer, Australian geologist and climate sceptic, on Pat Kenny’s radio show on December 2nd, by calling Plimer “a grade-A charlatan”. Let us hope the discussions in Copenhagen will be more measured.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1210/1224260412971.html

Gibbons writes: “Lomborg’s actual genius lies not in science, but in theatre. He realised that if he could look and sound science-y, almost no one would know the difference, since few in the media or politics have any idea how science actually works.”

The same point could be made about Al Gore who has become immensely wealthy from his advocacy on climate change.

However, hurling personal abuse about does not engage the disengaged

Tony Kinsella wrote on Gibbons’ own blog: “Our arguments need to be solid and challenging while not being alarmist.

More rational analysis and less proselytising.

The participation of Bjorn Lomborg in the debate should be welcome. He does after all advocate the development of clean energies.

In recent years there has been a stampede to embrace renewables, including of course vested interests. However, sometimes the apparent cure can make the disease worse.

Economist Prof. John Kay wrote last month in the FT: “Scientists have learnt that exaggerated claims are a route to a media profile and research funding. There is little downside in predicting disaster: if it does not materialise they can claim to have been instrumental in staving it off. Scares that thrive, such as the millennium bug and swine flu, have commercial interests that benefit from their propagation. Naysayers in the credit boom, by contrast, were trampled in the rush to share the riches available to those who denied or disregarded the dangers.”

While the irrational belief in a god is still common in the world, it will take time for rational arguments on climate change to gain wide acceptance.

Lomborg hardly writes about climate change. Economists overwhelmingly focus on the economics of climate change. I made a jump of faith and assumed that John Gibbons’ attack was on the actual contributions of Lomborg and of economists. I admit than John Gibbons might just as well have attacked their imaginary contribution.

I further assumed that John Gibbons used the adjective “voodoo” not as a means to limit his assertion to a specific class of economic models but rather as a way to dismiss economic models in general. I admit that the sentence is grammatically ambiguous and that I chose to interpret it in one particular way.

Lomborg does not publicly question the reality of anthropogenic global warming and is therefore unlikely to have influenced the public on that topic. He has hardly featured in the furore over CRU and IPCC. John Gibbons’ allegation is truly bizarre. Since you seem to believe it, perhaps you want to elaborate on this particular hypothesis?

Lomborg writes books with popular science. In popular science, there is a trade-off between accuracy and sales. Lomborg sells well. In fact, his first book did so well that he can now afford to be more accurate.

Lomborg successfully punches holes in climate hysteria. As panic is a bad adviser, Lomborg plays a useful role in the debate on climate policy. Lomborg provides counterbalance. He is therefore not balanced.

It is symptomatic of the debate on climate policy that a person cannot ask and answer a simple question without being attacked — and indeed the attack is not limited to the person but is on the entire discipline.

It is beyond me how John Gibbons has received so little critique in the letters page for so long.

Re The Sceptical Environmentalist, has anybody ever come across the publication of a book which was met with such vehement critique? If my memory serves my correctly, Scientific American felt it was so threatening that it published three major critiques (all very negative) very soon after publication. Not to mention the farce about the Danish Committee in ethics in research which also treated the author very badly.

Thanks very much for the info. I had a quick look at Lomborg’s response to Friel, and that too sounds very convincing…! My guess is that there are serious differences over how viewpoints are framed, e.g. what is the most effective way of spending €50 billion vs. what is the potential fallout from AGW? or how can we best preserve polar bear habitats that are subject to climate change vs how can we protect polar bears best (Lomborg’s point about stopping polar bear hunting seems very reasonable). Anyhow, as with much else it is hard to know who to trust, but as someone who is trying to grapple with these questions it’s great to hear the airing of arguments on this blog and in the comments.

Here’s how to decide: You get a copy of Lomborg’s book and then chomp through Friel’s book checking out Friel’s criticisms of Lomborg’s misquoting of scientific papers. You can take a, dare I say it, statistical approach to this and randomly select a statistically significant number of the allegations, rather than trawl through the whole thing. If Friel’s right in most cases I suggest you have the right to consider Lomborg as tendentious junk.

If you want a picture of where climate science is at then do yourself a favour and hop over to http://www.realclimate.org/. Warning - it’s not always easy reading, especially if you drill down into the original papers referenced, and even worse if you try to understand the models used in detail, for which you can also find most of the source code and raw data.

I didn’t make that sound very inviting, did I? Let me rephrase that. The content is clear enough for any averagely literate and numerate person to get something from.

I’m wondering if this Gibbons/Tol thing isn’t some kind of turf war over space in the Irish Times. Naïve of me not the think of this before.

This site could do with a preview button.

Webmaster: Google “Wordpress comment preview plugins” and take your pick.

Mr. Gibbons (and by the well-worn principle of generalisation environmentalists who criticize conventional economics) is variously compared to are variously compared to Stalinists missing the Soviet Union and and a populist in 1930s Germany. I note you neatly avoided the N. word, with all that implies.

Moving on to Mr. Tol’s criticism of Mr. Gibbon’s article:

Nowhere in his article does Mr. Gibbons claim that “that statisticians and economists have no relevant expertise on climate science and policy”. Notice the trick here. Mr. Tol conveniently elides the qualification of the economist to comment on climate change policy, which any person in their right mind would grant, with Mr. Gibbons actual criticism of their right to comment on climate change science, which some, including many commentators on this thread, seem to support. Economists emphatically do not have the background to critique the mix of physics, atmospheric chemistry, mathematical and computer modeling which constitutes the impressive state of contemporary climate science.

Nor does Mr. Gibbons refer “to economic models as “voodoo””. He claims that Lomborg uses ‘classic voodoo economics models’. Again the convenient generalisation by Mr. Tol as an invitation for the me-too crowd can turn into generalised attacks on environmentalists.

The other issue of substance in Mr. Gibbons article is that Lomborg played a key role in an campaign to undermine public belief overwhelming consensus in climate science on the reality and likely effects of AGW. He paved the way for blowing up some methodological issues at the University of East Anglia CRU and some bad fact-checking in a peripheral IPPC report into an attack on climate science and in some cases science in general. This was an ideological exercise par excellence.

I find myself in the invidious position of agreeing with Mr. Tol, however, in his assertion that climate change mitigation is absolutely a question of economics, given that economic activity drives anthropogenic global warming. Equally changes in economic activity and organisation along with technological change are the only way to mitigate its quite possibly disastrous effects on our ability to support the current global population.

thanks for the info and insight.

“It’s Karl Whelan’s reductionism that really sums up the problem. Economists come in and say “well, this is just a simple statistical problem, let’s look at temperatures at Dublin Airport over the last 30 years. Done!”

Perhaps you’re confusing me with some other UCD economist!

Bjorn Lomborg was only one of JG’s targets, the targets included _any_ economist or statistician. I don’t dispute that there exists valid criticism of Lomborg, but John Gibbon’s attempts to shut down debate are not at all helpful. In his current form, John Gibbons criticism should not be entertained.

Also specifically his attempt to rule Lomborg offside is pretty nuts as for example in 2008 Lomborg was named “one of the 50 people who could save the planet” by the Guardian. Needless to say the failure John Gibbons didn’t even get a look in : http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/05/activists.ethicalliving

As said, it is ridiculous that people such as Gibbons, of mediocre talent, and lesser honesty, are being allowed to dominate debate on this important public issue. The Irish Times really needs to think about its standards in giving a platform to people liek Gibbons, there are many, many more out there more able than him - and they do the specific issue (climate change) and wider public policy debate , a serious disservice by appointing him as climate change champion.

Toujours la politesse ….

bjg

apart from Gibbons’ style, shriekiness and shrillness, is he right to castigate Lomborg?