Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 Next
Comments 9251 to 9300:
-
nigelj at 05:34 AM on 23 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
markpittsusa @22
"In our world of Realpolitik, the burden of proof is on the people who want to spend $100 trillion to change the world's energy systems."
And the case has been adequately proven as far as I'm concerned.
-
markpittsusa at 05:10 AM on 23 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Burden of Proof ?
In our world of Realpolitik, the burden of proof is on the people who want to spend $100 trillion to change the world's energy systems.
Moderator Response:[PS] That would be a strawman argument. If your views are based in your political values and you cannot imagine a way to reduce CO2 emissions in a way that is compatible with your political views, then can you imagine any proof that would satify you? If not, then this is not the site for you.
-
markpittsusa at 05:03 AM on 23 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
Economists Estimating Economic Costs of Climate Change Due to Labor Lost (16%)
This post is part of my on-going response to several commentators who asked me to be more specific about the source of my views.
My last post concerned the under-representation (only 12-1/2%) of professional economists participating in estimating the economic loss of climate change as it related to premature Mortality (75% of the total economic cost according to Hsiang et al 2017) in the Fourth NCA report.
This comment concerns the lack of professional economists participating in the Labor Loss part of economic losses in that same report.
The list below shows that only 3 of 19 experts (about 16%) of those estimating economic costs actually have educational or professional training in economics.
[Definitional Note: Here “educational training in economics” means a graduate degree in economics. “Professional training in economics” means held a professional position as an economist, per se, on a economics faculty, in government, or in business.]
Go to p.552 of the Fourth NCA report Vol. II. The references concerning the economic cost of labor lost due to climate change are 157, 167, 169, 164, 170, and 160.
The experts cited directly (as opposed to citied indirectly through another report) are below.
My Preliminary findings:
Ref #157 references another report.
Ref. #167
Salomon Hsiang (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Robert Kopp (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Amir Jina (Yes, an economist, or at least can publish as such)
James Rising (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Maria Del Mar Delgado (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Shashank Mohan (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics)
D.J. Rasmussen (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Robert Muir-Wood (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Paul Wilson (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Michael Oppenheimer (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Kate Larsen (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics)
T. Houser (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics - but not 100% clear from what I can find.)
Ref #169
Joshua S. Graff Zivin (YES, an economist)
Matthew J. Neidell (Yes, an economist)
Ref #164
Michael D. Mastrandrea (No apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Ref #170
J. P. Dunne (No apparent professional or educational training in economics)
R. J. Stouffer (No apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Jasmin G. John (No apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Ref#160:
K. Gordon (No apparent professional or educational training in economics)
In my view, as long as economists are not the primary experts making estimates of economic costs, critics are justified in questioning whether these are really experts.
I’d appreciate any comments or corrections.
-
nigelj at 12:18 PM on 22 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
It's just absurd to think people with degrees in atmospheric physics or climate science (and nothing else) would do detailed economic analysis and forecasting. They might dabble a little where their maths skills are relevant, but they would not be the primary source. They have neither the training, time or skills. That's why research papers on the relationship between hard sciences and the humanities like economics, or health fields have many authors in several disciplines.
Scepticism is important and I get where Mark is coming from, but there are only so many hours in the day, and I prefer to target my scepticism at sensible things. If the paper reached unusual looking conclusions I would be sceptical of the content and I perhaps would check out the authors, but its not unusual. But each to their own interests.
-
nigelj at 11:53 AM on 22 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
markpittsusa at 9 (on electric airplane thread)
"When I say Hsiang is not an economist, I mean he has no formal training in economics, has never been part of an economics faculty, and has never published in a peer-reviewed economics journal.That is exactly the problem. He is a climate guy trying to do economics."
Yes he has no economics qualification but that doesn't matter. He doesn't have to have this because 1) he has plenty of maths and economics experience if you google his history and publications and 2) The paper he authored has plenty of people with economics qualifications as in the list I posted. That's how science works. Like I said it tends to be a multi disciplinary team effort. And remember many qualifications in public policy subjects include units in economics.
And your argument is flawed on another level because its the "argument from authority" fallacy, namely that someones qualifications are not evidence their findings are correct or incorrect. Studies ultimately stand or fall on what they say. You have yet to prove the content of the study wrong.
And you don't need a huge number of economists anyway.
----------------------------
markpittsusa (@11 on electric airplane thread)
"I have provide detailed analysis that I (and I think most economists) would agree shows that only 1 in 8 directedly cited "experts" for mortality related economic costs are not trained in economics or public health."
You have not provided a detailed analysis. You have sampled only a very small number of people involved in the section on heatwaves and all from a section on the physical sciences, as I showed, and so of course they would not include any economists or health experts, or certainly very few. I'm not sure why you don't seem to understand this.
"Please share the names of the economists that you think contributed. The entire burden of proof is not mine alone."
Yes the entire burden is on you. I'm happy with the report, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Innocent until proven guilty. I've read enough of these sorts of things to know they are multi disciplinary affairs. You appear to have jumped to conclusions of your own without checking properly. That's your problem, not mine.
Moderator Response:[PS] Added backlink to original thread.
-
nigelj at 11:30 AM on 22 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
I have placed a response on the followup link.
-
markpittsusa at 10:57 AM on 22 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
@Nigel.
I have provide detailed analysis that I (and I think most economists) would agree shows that only 1 in 8 directedly cited "experts" for mortality related economic costs are not trained in economics or public health.
You believe I am wrong. Please share the names of the economists that you think contributed.
The entire burden of proof is not mine alone.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is offtopic. Please place followups here.
Start by explaining whether you agree with Hsiang 2017 et al.
Backlink to this comment would help.
Further offtopic comments by anyone will be deleted.
-
markpittsusa at 10:53 AM on 22 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
As I carefully explained, my analysis only concerned mortality since that is 75% of the economic costs.
(In the past I've looked at the other sections you mention, but the result is about the same.)
-
markpittsusa at 10:51 AM on 22 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
When I say Hsiang is not an economist, I mean he has no formal training in economics, has never been part of an economics faculty, and has never published in a peer-reviewed economics journal.
That is exactly the problem. He is a climate guy trying to do economics.
-
nigelj at 10:05 AM on 22 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
Move my comment to a relevant thread if you want.
-
nigelj at 10:04 AM on 22 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
markpittsusa @20
Unfortunately your comments appear deeply flawed.
You say "This comment concerns my contention that economists are severely under-represented in making estimates of economic losses. ....Start by going to p. 551 of the Fourth NCA report Vol. II. This section concerns the increased mortality due to higher temperatures. In case there is any question concerning the importance of this section, Hsiang et al 2017, Fig 5., shows that premature mortality constitutes about 75% of the economic costs of climate change. So, this section is extremely important. (Hsiang, who has no educational or professional training in economics, is mentioned 33 times in the NCA report.)....The following are the economic “experts” cited directly in this section. Surprisingly, most are also not even trained in public health. How can you estimate the economic loss of premature death with no credentials in economics or in public health????... (list of people)"
Incorrect. You have only listed a few of the people involved in the section on heatwaves and related matters. Your references in this section are namely 161, 162 ,168 and they relate to a preliminary paragraph that only discusses the physical science as follows: "The projected increase in the annual number of heat wave days is substantially reduced under a lower scenario (RCP4.5) compared to a higher scenario (RCP8.5), reducing heat wave intensities161,168 and resulting in fewer high-mortality heat waves162,168 without considering adaptation ".
You have ignored the rest of the relevant sections on the economics of the heatwave issue that starts "Labor Productivity Under a higher scenario (RCP8.5), almost two billion labor hours are projected to be lost annually by 2090 ..." and numerous references in these paragraphs including 157, 160, 167, 169 and others. A quick scan of the bibliography indicates these include economics research institutes and the like.
S Hsiang is not an economist , however the other contributors to his paper include economics expertise and other experise as follows:
Solomon Hsiang1,2,*,†, Robert Kopp3,*,†, Amir Jina4,†, James Rising1,5,†, Michael Delgado6, Shashank Mohan6, D. J. Rasmussen7, Robert Muir-Wood8, Paul Wilson8, Michael Oppenheimer7,9, Kate Larsen6, Trevor Houser6
1Global Policy Laboratory, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
2National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
4Department of Economics and Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
5Energy Resource Group, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
6Rhodium Group, New York, NY, USA.7Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.
8Risk Management Solutions, Newark, CA, USA.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 09:48 AM on 22 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
Can we move this to the appropriate thread? This one is about electric aviation.
-
markpittsusa at 08:26 AM on 22 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
Where are the economists (and health experts)?
I cannot answer all the scurrilous charges leveled at me at once (ha-ha, just kidding), so I will take a piecemeal approach to keep the discussion manageable.
This comment concerns my contention that economists are severely under-represented in making estimates of economic losses. (As you will see, public health experts are also conspicuously absent.)
Start by going to p. 551 of the Fourth NCA report Vol. II. This section concerns the increased mortality due to higher temperatures. In case there is any question concerning the importance of this section, Hsiang et al 2017, Fig 5., shows that premature mortality constitutes about 75% of the economic costs of climate change. So, this section is extremely important. (Hsiang, who has no educational or professional training in economics, is mentioned 33 times in the NCA report.)
The following are the economic “experts” cited directly in this section. Surprisingly, most are also not even trained in public health. How can you estimate the economic loss of premature death with no credentials in economics or in public health????
(from references 161, 162, & 168 for section 14 of Vol II):
These are my Preliminary findings - please correct me if I’ve made any errors:
K.W. Oleson (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics, or public health)
G.B. Anderson (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics)
Benjamin Jones (yes, an economist)
Seth A. McGinnis (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics, or public health)
Benjamin Sanderson (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics, or public health)
Claudia Tebaldi (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics, or public health)
Brian C. O’Neill (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics or public health)
J. Gao (NO apparent professional or educational training in economics, or public health)
So only 1 in 8 “experts” on estimating the biggest part of the economic impact of climate change is an economist. So, why are the economists (and public health experts) missing in action?
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory and baiting rhetoric snipped.
Please clean up your game. -
markpittsusa at 08:23 AM on 22 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
Summary:
I asserted that climate science often ignores the experts. This happens when the experts in economics (and other social sciences) are ignored in favor of non-experts, particularly climate scientists.
Other commentators on this site strongly opposed my view.
I used the example of the economic loss estimates of climate change in the Fourth NCA report. I showed that only 1 in 8 referenced researchers in fact had training and experience in economics (or even public health).
I also pointed out that the work of a recent Nobel Laureate in economics who had worked in exactly this area was ignored in the NCA report. Similarly, the work of other less prominent economists in this area was ignored.
The commentators who opposed my view have been unable to provide the names of any participating economists to refute my argument.
Conclusion:
Check and Checkmate
Moderator Response:[DB] Sloganeering and empty rhetoric snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site is a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly submit intentionally misleading comments or simply make things up. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter, as no further warnings shall be given.
-
markpittsusa at 08:21 AM on 22 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
@All, Please see specifics concerning my problems with the Fourth NCA report. (Moderator - Was I locked out for the last 24 hours?)
Moderator Response:[DB] You were not locked out from making comments in this venue.
-
nigelj at 05:52 AM on 22 October 2019Tipping Points: Could the climate collapse?
ilfark2, good points and nicely time lined. This is my take on the same theme: there are numerous possible tipping points and while scientists have some time frames on them and have worked hard to understand them, there are uncertainties and unknowns . Scientists would only need to be dramatically wrong on one of the tipping points for humanity to have a serious problem, because they all have significant implications. And with so many tipping points the possibility of error increases. It all suggests use of the precautionary principle.
It's about the implications of the risk. You might take a risk if there was uncertainty but the implications were not too serious, but we only have one planet and some form of run away warming or abrupt climate change can't be ruled out. My gut says climate change is serious and I trust my gut. If the science on tipping points is not 100% certain what else have we got but our instincts and subliminal thought? It doesnt make sense to say lack of 100% certainty suggests we do nothing, not when the risks are this high.
Now what are the costs of mitigation, because if they are so high that they send us back to the stone age, that would not be much use to us. Maybe we would take the risk and ignore the tipping points. But the costs of mitigation will not send us back to the stone age or anywhere near it. So all the evidence favours mitigation and with urgency.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 01:43 AM on 22 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
Alice looks indeed like a great airplane. Incidentally led me to discover Phinergy, because there was some possibility that Alice's batteries be provided by Phinergy. Looks like an interesting technology:
-
ilfark2 at 00:26 AM on 22 October 2019Nature’s Dangerous Decline ‘Unprecedented’; Species Extinction Rates ‘Accelerating’
So, this is a bit of a throwback... I have a hard time locating resonses to my comments since i don't look at this site everyday and don't get email notifications... just dawned on me to search the website
so nijel, just wanted to type that the largest most successful communities like this (Free Catalonia of the 1930s and the 19th Century Paris Commune... briefly Hungary (1955/6), Czechoslovakia (1968), and many others did not fail or get abandoned... they were crushed. We don't know how long Catalonia would have lasted, not to mentiont the Paris Commune. I'd argue, based off a lot of archaeolgy as summarized by Graeber, the majority of humans have lived in egalitarian societies for the majority of their existence... historians (and until recently archaeolgists) have intentionally turned a blind eye to this fact, so I wouldn't call them "alternative" societies... if you're curious, read Graeber's "Debt: The First 5000 Years..."
Dolack's "It's not over" seems to be good survery of various versions of "socialism"
-
ilfark2 at 00:10 AM on 22 October 2019Tipping Points: Could the climate collapse?
One should mention Richard Alley's work on abrupt climate change. Also note the above linked PNAS (from 2007 it looks like) mentions:
“the qualitative change would appear beyond this millennium (e.g.,marinemethanehydrates...”
but we're already possibly seeing more methane from the arctic as well as other parts of the ocean;
they also mention permafrost likely being gradual (though they say <100 yrs)
and of course it's easy to find many journal articles documenting how much faster various things are occurring than expected
it seems clear, they don't know and won't be scientifically certain until it's likely too late (if it's not already too late... which they don't seem sure of either)
point being, the idea of scientific methodical certainty is and has been misplaced in some senses... there were clarion calls in the nineteenth century by Darwin and other natural scientists, not about global warming per se, but that if we continued down the industrial (coal burning, forest clearing) path, we'd end the habitable world...
what was their proof that the world wasn't big enough to handle humans' collective assault? nothing that would pass a sort of vigorous lab experimental approach, rather "look at what has been left..."
critics of course said the earth would regerate after clear cutting and could handle the smoke from the coal (arrhenius pointed out the CO2 would warm the earth, but being a chemist, and not understanding ecology in any way, assumed more warmth would be good)...
so here we are again... no, we can't say when and how much methane will be released from the oceans... so far, in the warmer regions, various organisms intercept it, but a few places these have been overwhelmed... sure the yaley climate connection says don't worry about methane release since it would take the shallow arctic oceans warming by, i forget, 5 to 7 C for them to be released... yet we've seen unprecented warm pacific water incursion into the arctic this summer...
so how long do we have until the permafrost, marine methane and other feedbacks occur? it seems we don't know, and won't know for a while
so, we're driving 80 mph (sorry i'm amurican) in fog on a plain... someone radios there's a cliff ahead, though they aren't sure how far or how large the drop is
time for at least a WWII mobilization, better a reorganization of society along democratic lines (e.g., Free Catalonia of the 1930s).
-
Hank11198 at 21:25 PM on 21 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
Markpittsusa @ 21
“Doug & Nigel - I understand and agree. But that's not what most people understand "existential threat" to mean.”
Climate change is not an existential threat to humans but it is an existential threat to civilization. Considering what has happened to humans in the past when civilization breaks down, using existential threat to describe climate change seems not only reasonable but an appropriate depiction.
-
sailrick at 13:52 PM on 21 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
markpittsusa said - "Roughly speaking, 50% of the US stock market is in pension funds and retirement accounts. Roughly another 25% in individual accounts."
------------
I'm not convinced that is true
Percent of Financial assests held by various wealth groups in 2004:
the top 1% 50.3%
The next 9% 35.3%
That's 85.6% for the top 10%
the bottom 90% owned 14.4%Percent of total wealth held by various wealth groups in 2004
top 1% - 33.4%
top 5% - 57.5%
top 10% - 69.5%
bottom 50% — 2.5%LINK
-----------Moderator Response:[DB] Shortened and hyperlinked URL breaking page formatting.
-
Doug Bostrom at 12:26 PM on 21 October 2019A small electric plane demonstrates promise, obstacles of climate-friendly air travel
Israel's Eviation is apparently on track to bring their 9 seat regional airline offering to market ~2022, with a schedule for certification complete in 2021. They have a NE US regional commuter airline on tap as a launch customer. Slated performance is 600NM, 240kt.
https://www.flyingmag.com/eviation-debuts-alice/
Small detail is that as of last month Eviation needed about $200 million to complete the program but they seem confident. Most of the mystery is wrung out already, including motors, batteries, successful assembly of first test article.
The market for such aircraft apparently encompasses some 45% of air routes (we fly not far enough too much?)
-
Philippe Chantreau at 11:47 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
A little time? For what?
Markpittsusa, if you really looked at the Lancet review, you would have known that there was plenty of public health experts among the authors, so why portray it as the opposite?
If you didn't look at the authorship, then again, why would you say that you were familiar with it enough to know about that particular point?
These are indeed legitimate questions.
-
Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
markpittsusa - Considering that 'corporations' weren't mentioned at all in the OP, and are not the subject of the discussion (rather, the subject is distorted claims against the Canadian ClimateData site), I would have to consider your comments on this thread to be entirely off topic as per the comments policies.
Moderators, please note.
-
nigelj at 08:53 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
markpittsusa @13
"(and then as Nigel suggests, you can ban me for making good points that go against your views.)'
Quit with shoving words in my mouth, and totally misrepresenting what I said.
----------------
markpittsusa @15
"It would be helpful to me (really) if you could tell me who you think were the professional economists who contributed to estimating economic losses in the Forth NCA report. (There are 177 references in that Part 14 of the report, so it's not obvious.)"
Find out yourself. Stop being lazy. You are making wild accusations that defy even simple commonsense. It's therefore incumbent on you to provide proof, not me.
Moderator Response:[DB] The onus is now on the user to whom you refer to either support his claims with link citations or to withdraw them. He will also not be allowed to continue to misrepresent others here.
-
michael sweet at 07:49 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #40, 2019
Mark Pitts USA,
Sorry I am late to the party.
Your argument that 100 trillion is too expensive to build out renewable energy completely leaves out the cost of fossil energy. It has been documented in hundreds of articles that renewable energy is cheaper than fossil energy. Why do you think coal plants continue to close? The choice is not between 100 trillion for renewable energy and free fossil fuels, the choice is 100 trillion for renewable energy and 150 trillion for fossil fuels. Are you seriously claiming fossil energy is free? (Sorry no references on my phone). Search articles on renewable energy here at SkS.
You claim to be cost conscious by choosing the more expensive option. In addition, fossil fuel energy will destroy a liveable climate. If we go with the cheaper renewable option we have a chance of preserving a livable climate. There is no downside to moving to renewable energy except fossil executives will not keep getting those big bonuses.
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:40 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
I did, Mark, and what I read is that you've incurred a heavy debt of claims which you now need to pay back.
How about taking a pause on making more unsupported assertions and instead focus on paying off your balance?
-
markpittsusa at 07:35 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Doug, please read my comment posted about 3 minutes before yours...
Moderator Response:[DB] Lacking link citations to support your claims, your assertions about the NCA4 are without merit and can safely be ignored.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can and will be rescinded if the posting individual continues to treat adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Moderating this site can be a tiresome chore, particularly when commentators repeatedly make things up and misrepresent the words of others. We really appreciate people's cooperation in abiding by the Comments Policy, which is largely responsible for the quality of this site.
Finally, please understand that moderation policies are not open for discussion. If you find yourself incapable of abiding by these common set of rules that everyone else observes, then a change of venues is in the offing.Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
markpittsusa at 07:33 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Nigel,
It would be helpful to me (really) if you could tell me who you think were the professional economists who contributed to estimating economic losses in the Forth NCA report. (There are 177 references in that Part 14 of the report, so it's not obvious.)
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:21 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Mark:
— Garbage In Garbage Out (aka your assumptions determine your conclusions)
— Correlation is Not Causation
— Hundreds of Articles That All Cite the Same Few Sources Do Not Constitute Hundreds of Independent FindingsHaving made those vague and hence unanswerable* claims, Mark, it's now incumbent on you to back all of them with specifics.
Or don't. Everything is information.
*"Unanswerable" comes in two main forms: unintelligible, or inarguable.
-
markpittsusa at 07:17 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Doug & Philippe & Nigel,
Your objections are understandable, but as my comment states, I need a little time to make my objections specific. I read the NCA report and related articles 9 months ago, and I don't remember many details.
I think most skeptical scientists would want to hear my specific scientific objections (and then as Nigel suggests, you can ban me for making good points that go against your views.)
-
markpittsusa at 07:03 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Doug & Philippe
Re: The Forth National Assessment, Vol II
Some things to consider:
First, it is impossible to easily see the non-sensical aspects of this report because it is basically a summary of hundreds of articles. So, as a skeptical scientist, you have to go to the underlying articles to see if they make sense.
Secondly, I am Not saying their analysis is wrong in the sense that they made up the data, or did the calculations wrong, or anything like that. But they are wrong in the senses of:
— Garbage In Garbage Out (aka your assumptions determine your conclusions)
— Correlation is Not Causation
— Hundreds of Articles That All Cite the Same Few Sources Do Not Constitute Hundreds of Independent FindingsThirdly, many of the “scientific predictions” that were reported in the popular and social media concerning this report were the worst case (usually 2 standard deviation) scenarios. This is a big deal since much of what is said to be “science,” is not what scientists are predicting at all.
Forth, we have to trust the experts. And we can’t pick and choose which experts to believe, right? The Forth NCA report ignores the economic loss estimates of the recent Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus (mentioned 2 times) but instead relies heavily on the work those trained in climate science/ sustainability instead of economics (particularly the work of S. Hsiang, mentioned 33 times). If career bureaucrats choose to ignore the economic experts when making economic estimates, is the result science, or politics?
[I will address specific scientific problems in the Forth NCA report in a later post.]
-
Philippe Chantreau at 06:53 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Markpittsusa, you said exactly this:
" It is climate specialists, not public health officials, making the most predictions."
And then this:
"I am basing this opinion on my familiarity with the big IPCC report from the end of last year, the Forth National Climate Assessment (for impacts on the US), and the influential Lancet report on health problems related to climate change - all from about the end of last year.]"
Looking at Lancet report shows that numerous authors are public health specialists. This has nothing to do with authority at all. It simply shows that you either did not read the report or that you intentionally mispreresented the pool of authors. That was the only scope of my post. I made no argument on the usefulness or authority of experts, you did.
I find it very intersting that your initial argument was that the concerning information did not come from experts, and then when it is shown that it actually does, you turn around to suggest that expertise does not confer authority.
-
nigelj at 06:21 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
markpittsusa@ 4
Your statements have been shown to be false by other people. I will make only one comment. You say "If you track down where the economic loss estimates are coming from, they are almost always made by climate scientists, not economists." And @8 he says "Have you questioned why few if any estimates by professional economists are included?"
In my experience this is completely false. He provides no evidence of these assertions, and his many other assertions. They are completely fact free empty assertions. markpittsusa is clearly sloganeering (and trolling) which is forbidden by moderation policy. Moderation policy requires he back his assertions by providing references to specific research papers or academic articles or online data bases and the like, and he has not. He never has. Therefore its sloganeering. Surely he needs a warning or things start to get deleted?
Here is a list of hundreds of journals dealing with environment and economics and with each authors background searchable and with many economists involved. That is a start and destroys the assertion that economists are not deeply involved in the climate issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_economics_journals
-
Doug Bostrom at 05:17 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Ultimately we take many things on authority, Mark, hanging our lives in the balance in so doing. I strap myself into a car and drive around with reasonable confidence that engineers who did finite element analysis to provide survivable space in the vehicle in the event of a collision were qualified for the work.
Have I become sufficiently expert as to have read and studied finite element analysis to the point that I could understand and describe in detail what's keeping me safer? If I were to pretend we as a culture were ignorant of finite element engineering analysis because I personally don't understand it, would that behoove me? No, obviously not in both cases. In reality it's a plain fact that finite element analysis makes me safer despite me knowing not much about it.
"Argument by authority" is a handy rhetorical tactic but doesn't pertain to the real world, doesn't function successfully as a means of dismissing everything we as a culture understand..
In the real world, we have to make decisions based on advice by specialists who know things we don't.
What you are suggesting is a route to paralysis. Paralysis over synthetic doubt strangely enough is the same strategy that worked so successfully for decades to keep us frozen in a state of suspended animation for dealing with climate change.
I think we'd all be interested in specific, defensible objections to the reports you cite as having problems. You're going to have to demonstrate superior skills in a variety of domains. Vague won't really do.
-
markpittsusa at 03:28 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Doug & Philippe,
I will respond in detail concerning the economic losses part of the reports, but I need a little more time to reread the reports and related articles.
I don't think skeptical scientists take things on authority, as you seem to be doing.
Have you looked at the data yourselves? Have you read the academic articles concerning economic losses underlying what's in those reports? Have you questioned why few if any estimates by professional economists are included?
-
Philippe Chantreau at 02:11 AM on 21 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Markpittsusa says "It is climate specialists, not public health officials, making the most predictions." The he mentions the report from the Lancet.
This report linked below is from the Lancet. It has convenient popups to information about each author, there are around 65 of them. It includes where they work and the focus of their department. I started clicking and saw exactly the mix that one could hope for: climate and atmospheric sciences, public health, global health, epidemiology, air quality, energy, livestock, fisheries, tropical medicine, etc.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:48 PM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
nigelj@14,
Cap & Trade is a penalty program. So is a Carbon Tax, even if it is Carbon Fee and Rebate.
But my point is that the most correction resistant power players (not wanting the corrections of energy systems to happen) will probably need to be threatened with penalty. It appears that some of the recent changes of tune, more powerful people changing to be more supportive of actions to rapidly reduce fossil fuel use, could be the result of concerns about being penalized for not changing their attitudes and actions.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:41 PM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
mikepittsusa@12,
As examples of how misleading marketing is identified, this website has shared a massive number of uncovered cases of misleading information regarding climate science. This item is one of them.
And this website also links to Denial 101, a course to teach people the many ways that misleading marketing can be identified.
Basically, when there is available observations and information, any claim that does not adequately address the available information is misleading. And repeating an incorrect misleading claim after it has been exposed as misleading is Repeat Offending.
Though some people may disagree about what is misleading, when there is a better understanding available, an understanding that best explains all of the available information, trying to keep others from being aware of it being the best understanding at this time is misleading.
Science is tricky that way. All there ever is is the best understanding at this (meaning any) time. But science has a way of developing understandings that are sustainable even if some details are brought into clearer focus. An example is the way that molecules are still made up of atoms even though much more detailed understandings have developed.
-
Doug Bostrom at 10:54 AM on 20 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
Half-facetiously I note that in nature, adaptation is driven entirely by death. :-)
The Fourth National Climate Assessment appeared in two volumes, the first being concerned with the physical science of climate change, the second focused on climate change effects on human culture.
Expert guidance for the two volumes was sourced from two distinct pools of disciplines, as one would expect.
If by "climate scientists" we mean people who are investigating physical science aspects of climate change, then no, it's not climate scientist who were making economic or health assessments for the NCA Volume II.
Meanwhile the insular nature of the process Mark alludes to isn't actually a real phenomenon. Here's how the construction of volume II is described via the horse's mouth, in the NCA front matter:
NCA4 Volume II was thoroughly reviewed by external experts and the general public, as well as the Federal Government (that is, the NCA4 Federal Steering Committee and several rounds of technical and policy review by the 13 federal agencies of the USGCRP). An expert external peer review of the whole report was performed by an ad hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).3 Additional information on the development of this assessment can be found in Appendix 1: Report Development Process.
For my part I'm not inclined to second-guess all of this; comparative to the talent pool encapsulated in the above process, I know nothing at all. Does anybody else here feel as though they could do a better job? And if so, specifically what do we have to offer?
Meanwhile a brief glance at this list of authors of the Lancet report Mark mentions reveals numerous public health experts, medical doctors etc. practicing in the field of public health.
Bruno Lemke, PhD
Lu Liang, PhD
Melissa Lott, PhD
Rachel Lowe, PhD
Maquins Odhiambo Sewe, PhD
Jaime Martinez-Urtaza
Prof Mark Maslin, PhD
Lucy McAllister, PhD
Prof Slava Jankin Mikhaylov, PhD
James Milner, PhD
Maziar Moradi-Lakeh, MD
Karyn Morrissey, PhD
Kris Murray, PhD
Maria Nilsson, PhD
Tara Neville, MSc
Tadj Oreszczyn, PhD
Fereidoon Owfi, PhD
Olivia Pearman, MEM
David Pencheon, BM
Steve Pye, MSc
Mahnaz Rabbaniha, PhD
Prof Elizabeth Robinson, PhD
Prof Joacim Rocklöv, PhD
Olivia Saxer, MA
Stefanie Schütte, PhD
Jan C Semenza, PhD
Joy Shumake-Guillemot, DrPH
Rebecca Steinbach, PhD
Meisam Tabatabaei, PhD
Julia Tomei, PhD
Joaquin Trinanes, PhD
Nicola Wheeler, MSc
Prof Paul Wilkinson, FRCP
Prof Peng Gong, PhD †
Prof Hugh Montgomery, MD †
Prof Anthony Costello, FMedSci †None of them are qualified to offer expert guidance? How likely is that?
-
markpittsusa at 08:55 AM on 20 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
I am also happy to get into the gory details as to why the popular economic loss estimates are mostly non-sense. (Short explanation: because they are based on the unrealistic assumption that people will not adapt to change.)
-
markpittsusa at 08:15 AM on 20 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
.Nigel - At least in terms of the economic social science, I believe you are dead wrong. And that’s the problem.
For example, there are few (if any?) economists involved in making the often repeated prediction that climate change will cost the US economy 10% by 2100. I know of no peer-reviewed article in an economic journal that shows this.
If you track down where the economic loss estimates are coming from, they are almost always made by climate scientists, not economists.
And concerning health issues, the situation is not much different. It is climate specialists, not public health officials, making the most predictions.
[I am basing this opinion on my familiarity with the big IPCC report from the end of last year, the Forth National Climate Assessment (for impacts on the US), and the influential Lancet report on health problems related to climate change - all from about the end of last year.]
Moderator Response:[PS] This discussion would greatly benefit from you backing your claims with references. As it is, this is tending to sloganeering. In particular, please:
1/ Reference the report(s) for economic losses being calculated by climate scientists. It would be particularly helpful if you showed where in the reports, you see estimates ignoring adaptation.
2/ Can you be specific about the predictions on health in the report that you think are authored by inappropriate authorities.
-
markpittsusa at 07:32 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
Doug & Nigel - I understand and agree. But that's not what most people understand "existential threat" to mean.
I think the tactic will backfire when Deniers point out that we're talking about scuttlefish, not human beings.
-
nigelj at 07:31 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
It depends how esistential threat is perceived. Denialists hear " exaggerated claim that humans would go extinct". Warmists hear " a wide scale threat to many forms of life and socioeconomic systems". DB makes a good point related to this.
But defintions are important to get right. People who use the term existential threat need to qualify it better, but the use of the term seems to be resonating with the public in general.
-
nigelj at 07:18 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
Markpittsusa, @17, yes I do hear that one. Its important to bear in mind climate change is an existential threat for many animal and plant species. That's what scientists subscribe to and theres plenty of published research on it.
But some environmental lobby lobby groups throw the term existential threat around in a loose fashion to imply humans are at risk of extinction. I'm a bit uncomfortable with this, as it's not really tenable to me. I haven't read a paper suggesting human extinction is literally possible. But it is not something scientists are promoting with the exception of G McPherson.
Of course there's evidence climate change could cause increased mortality in tropical regions.
But one should ask the question "has the term existential threat and the group extinction rebellion hurt efforts at mitigation"? Oddly enough it seems to it hasn't, and may be motivating mitigation.
-
Doug Bostrom at 07:17 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
Existential threat? It depends. For instance the geopolitical unit Bangladesh won't continue to exist as we know it, due to SLR.
-
nigelj at 07:02 AM on 20 October 2019Skeptical Science New Research for Week #41, 2019
markpittsusa @1, do bear in mind climate scientists are not themselves doing research in social and economic issues. Research papers that touch on impacts of the physical science on the social structure of communities, or which evaluate economic outcomes are usually multi disciplinary affairs with several authors expert in their own fields.
-
markpittsusa at 07:01 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
nigelj - Here is an exaggeration I see or hear 10 times a day:
"Climate change is an existential threat."
How many peer-reviewed scientific papers say that humanity is even remotely likely to cease to exist due to climate change?
-
nigelj at 06:47 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
markpittsusa, sorry for spelling your name wrong. Typo.
-
nigelj at 06:45 AM on 20 October 2019Canada's ClimateData Web Portal: Normal Science, Not Fake
dmarkpittsusa "The problem in my opinion is that there is plenty of "willful ignorance" on both sides: On the one hand there is denial. On the other hand, extreme (i.e., scientically refuted) exaggeration."
I think the willful ignorance is mostly on the denialist side of things. I concede there is some exaggeration by a few warmist individuals but they are small in number. Guy McPherson a biologist claimed climate change could cause human extinction within a couple of decades (or something like that) , and a ridiculous website suggested temperatures could soar ten degrees within a decade but these are a very small minority of scientists and individuals. Still its annoying because it gives denialists ammunition.
I'm not sure what exaggeration you are referring to, but I would make the point that there is no evidence of exaggeration in any of the IPCC findings, and in fact plenty of hard evidence suggests the IPCC are overly conservative in their findings. Such information is easily enough googled.
The science is multifaceted and compelling and has therefore not surprisingly lead to a consensus. Claiming IPCC reports are exaggerated is therefore just opinion, and pretty uninformed opinion.
Prev 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 Next
