Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

blatham wrote:

What's the workup by economists on the cost-benefit ratio of the Iraq war?

As it happens, William Nordhaus, the most frequently cited economist debunker of the Kyoto Protocol as cargo cult science, also wrote a candid and realistic article about the likely cost of the war in Iraq. Nordhaus' article sounds a bit vague today, but remember that he published it in 2002, at a time when Mr. Bush's official budget still projected the cost of the war to be zero. Nordhaus also tutored the Ph.D thesis of the economist on my avatar. As you know, that economist has published quite strongly-worded (and, in my view, correct) workups on the cost/benefit ratio of that war himself. Finally, there's Larry Lindsey, the economic ex-adviser to President Bush who realistically predicted the cost of the war in Iraq, and whom Bush fired for doing so. The only other person with a claim to a similar honor is Bush's ex- chief of staff of the army, Eric Shinseky. Do you want me to go on about the other items on your list of topics, or have I made my point?

You know, dear Blatham, that I sympathize with your anger and frustration about the Bush administration. But maybe this would be a good time for you to do some homework and reconsider your prejudices against economists.

0 Replies

thomas

To the charge of insufficient (less than paltry, in fact) education in economics - guilty. To the charge of resisting digging in more than an inch for my homework - guilty. Life is short and many other subjects occupy my interests.

But I truly have no prejudice against economists. I have no prejudice against clerks of any sort. I merely think their subject insufficient.

Re Iraq...everyone with half a brain knew that Wolfowitz was lying through his teeth when he spoke to Congress on the projected dollar costs of the Iraq campaign, where he bothered to bother folks with numbers at all.

I have no argument with Nordhaus' piece. But as you know, he brings rather more to it than number crunching. I love that folks like you are happy doing numbers, it is essential information. But the other stuff catches my attention. And I don't think it is measureable.

How does one quantify the hatred instilled in the Muslim world and its consequences? How does one calculate the damage to the 'soul' of America when it institutionalizes torture? How does one put a numerical measure on the injurty to citizenship from an administration which seeks so ubiquitously to deceive?

And you are, along with Helen, my dearest clerks.

0 Replies

ps...Anatol Lieven's "America Right or Wrong" (Oxford U Press) is a must read.

0 Replies

Well said blatham.

0 Replies

Blatham and GeorgeOB both wished me luck with the mathematical model I'm currently writing so I logged in to (i) thank them (ii) report that progress is satisfactory, with (if it works!) pathbreaking new programming technique, and (iii) thank Walter who approved of the following translation I'm using as intro to my writeup:
______________________________________________________________

Vom Kriege (On War)
Book 8, Chapter 3, Paragraph 8

Hier verläßt also die Tätigkeit des Verstandes das Gebiet der strengen Wissenschaft, der Logik und Mathematik, und wird, im weiten Verstande des Wortes, zur Kunst, d. h. zu der Fertigkeit, aus einer unübersehbaren Menge von Gegenständen und Verhältnissen die wichtigsten und entscheidenden durch den Takt des Urteils herauszufinden. Dieser Takt des Urteils besteht unstreitig mehr oder weniger in einer dunkeln Vergleichung aller Größen und Verhältnisse, wodurch die entfernten und unwichtigen schneller beseitigt und die nächsten und wichtigsten schneller herausgefunden werden, als wenn dies auf dem Wege strenger Schlußfolge geschehen sollte. [...]
Daß das Abwägen dieser mannigfachen und mannigfach durcheinandergreifenden Gegenstände eine große Aufgabe, daß es ein wahrer Lichtblick des Genies ist, hierin schnell das Rechte herauszufinden, während es ganz unmöglich sein würde, durch eine bloße schulgerechte Überlegung der Mannigfaltigkeit Herr zu werden, ist leicht zu begreifen. In diesem Sinne hat Bonaparte ganz richtig gesagt: es würde eine algebraische Aufgabe werden, vor der selbst ein Newton zurückschrecken könnte.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

"The approach here extends beyond the strict domain of science, logic and mathematics, and becomes - in the broadest sense of the word - an art. It calls for the ability to extract the essence out of a black box containing an incalculable multitude of variables and parameters, discarding what's insignificant and retaining only the crucial elements required for determining a sequence of future events. [..] No mathematical model can substitute for strategy, which assigns relative weights to all the endlessly complex, inter-related factors involved. Newton himself would retreat from such a calculation, as Napoleon observed."
_____________________________________________________________

This is an early description of the mathematical technique I'm working on - to have "virtual" probability trees at every node existing in a quantum state until "activated" by new simulation parameters or actual events. I suppose that does make me a "clerk" as charmingly observed earlier <G>

0 Replies

I understand that very dimly, if I understand it at all. Maybe more context would help.

Talk of strategy, Newton and Napoleon reminds me of the quotation from von Clausewicz seen sometimes here:
"No military strategy survives contact with the enemy"

Best of luck with the work, HofT.

0 Replies

Quote:

IS THE WORLD WARMING TO KYOTO?

Japan

"Japan will make all efforts to respect the rules of the protocol. It will neither be easy nor insurmountable." Takashi Omura, of the Japanese environment ministry

Britain

"Over 30-40 years...this is going to be a major, major issue. It's going to cause difficulty, if not catastrophe, for parts of the world and will also affect our own. The only solution, I'm afraid, is ... we have got to pull the Americans back into dialogue." Tony Blair

Australia

"Until the major polluters of the world, including the US and China, are made part of the Kyoto regime, it is next to useless and indeed harmful for a country such as Australia to sign up." Prime Minister John Howard

Russia

"The Kyoto Protocol in itself cannot solve all problems affecting the environment and the climate. We will continue efforts aimed at ... taking into account that this does not cover all developing regions." Deputy Foreign Minister, Yury Fedotov

Mexico

"The time has come to confront a reality that puts at risk the equilibrium of the planet and the survival of our species." President Vicente Fox

UN

"Climate change requires a concerted global response. I call on the world community to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, and to act quickly in taking the next steps." UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan

EU

"We are eager to engage in a constructive, forward-looking international process with all our partners on how we can achieve the necessary reductions" European Commission President, Jose Manuel Barroso

Source

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush is accused of hot air as Kyoto comes into force

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
17 February 2005

The Bush administration was accused yesterday of deception after it claimed it was making a serious commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, despite its non-participation in the Kyoto agreement.

Environmentalists said policies introduced by the government would not prevent the continued increase in emissions from the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluter and were little more than fig leaves.

"The bottom line is that emissions are going up and with the current Bush administration policies they are going to continue to go up," said Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defence Council, an environmental group. "It's misleading for them to claim they are seriously committed to reducing global warming."

President George Bush withdrew US backing for the Kyoto protocol in March 2001, saying it would be too damaging to the country's economy and would cost five million jobs. He also claimed the agreement was based on unreliable science and unfairly excluded developing nations such as India, China and Brazil, which account for a third of the world's population. Though the US originally put its signature to the proposal, it was opposed so adamantly by the US Senate that it was never submitted for ratification by President Bill Clinton.

This week, President Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said that despite its withdrawal from Kyoto, the administration had initiated measures to address global warming, including investment in hydrogen fuel cell technology, tax incentives for renewable energy, the raising of fuel economy standards and a plan for zero emission by coal-fired power plants. He said: "Under this administration we have made an unprecedented commitment to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in a way that continues to grow our economy."

Campaigners said Mr McClellan was giving a false picture. Much of the money being spent, they said, was going to scientific research when there was already a broad international consensus that global warming did exist and that burning fossil fuels was a contributing factor. They also said fuel economy for cars had barely improved in 20 years.

"It's just smoke and mirrors," said Jessica Coven, a climate campaigner with Greenpeace. "They say they are spending billions of dollars but much of that money is for research into whether global warming exists. The Bush administration should be spending ... billions on solutions that are available now - solar and wind ... If there was the political will, the US could reduce its emissions."

But individual states have been credited for initiatives to reduce emissions. In November, The Independent reported how nine states, led by New York's Governor, George Pataki, were putting together a system to cap and trade greenhouse gas emissions. The regional-level initiative, details of which are due to be announced in spring, could even link up with the emissions controls and trading system being established by the EU and allow emission allowances to be traded across the Atlantic.

Under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), industries covered by the schemes will be given allocations in units of one ton of carbon dioxide produced. Polluters could then either reduce their emissions or buy allocations on a market from others. In the US, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, which cause acid rain and smog, are federally regulated and traded, but there is no federal regulation of carbon dioxide.

source: as above

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

But I truly have no prejudice against economists. I have no prejudice against clerks of any sort. I merely think their subject insufficient.

1) You observe nothing special about economics here. Every intellectual subject is insufficient if you bring nothing else to it.

2) Economics as accounting, or in your words, clerking: that's the prejudice I'm talking about. And you could easily see how wrong it is by re-reading some of your Hume and your Mill. In earlier threads, you professed to have read and liked these authors, so presumably you won't get bored by reading them again. Hume's Essays Moral, Political and Literary and Mill's Principles of Political Economy are both excellent places to start. Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments is also interesting.

It may sound strange to you, but at its core, economics is really not about money or jobs or GDP figures; it's not about the economy as the term is usually understood; instead, it's about the implications of rational choice. While you're right that accounting doesn't tell us anything about the wisdom of torturing prisoners and destroying goodwill among muslims, economics does. There is a difference between rational and irrational choices in such matters, this difference is important, and we can tell which is which. You are welcome not to read what economists have to say about choices outside the narrow scope of the economy. But just because you haven't read about this field, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so I'd prefer it if you didn't make such confident pronouncements about its insufficiency.

3) I was responding to a post of yours, in which you responded to Helen, who talked about global warming and Kyoto -- the subject of your thread. She labeled as a cargo cult the people who warn us about catastrophic global warming. These people claim that the heat may kill us, and that ecological catastrophes may prevent us from feeding ourselves. True or false, these are statements about the economy, narrowly defined. So even in your narrow understanding of economics as clerking, economics is quite adequate as a means of debunking that cargo cult.

Blatham wrote:

ps...Anatol Lieven's "America Right or Wrong" (Oxford U Press) is a must read.

I'm still reading John Micklethwait, Adrian Wooldridge: The Right Nation. The next book on my reading list for this topic is Gang of Five, which shamefully I haven't started yet. (Talk about homework-ditching! Smile

) But thanks for the tip.

0 Replies

All that remains to be added to Thomas' clear explanation is an example which Blatham will readily understand: Professor Lieven's model
(brief expose here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17750 )
is perfectly quantifiable.

1. Empires require outlays in blood and treasure and sometimes citizens balk at the cost: Vietnam is the classic example in the post-1945 US model of empire.

2. Following the collapse of the last remaining empires (Russian and Portuguese), both run by undemocratic governments at the time, we start seeing a subtler problem with the spread of freedom and democracy: democratic countries choosing paths not consistent with US interests.
This cri de coeur about Turkey from yesterday's WSJ, e.g., is striking in its naivete in that respect:

"...Forgotten have been decades of U.S. military assistance. Forgotten have been years of American efforts to secure a pipeline route for Caspian oil that terminates at the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Forgotten has been the fact that U.S. administrations continue to fight annual attempts in Congress to pass a resolution condemning modern Turkey for the long-ago Armenian genocide. Forgotten has been America's persistent lobbying for Turkish membership in the European Union...."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006299

Inertia is a great force in politics as in physics; the costs of outlays to Turkey (or Israel, or Pakistan) may not be recalculated instantly, but the general model does eventually adapt in response to unintended consequences.

Note to McTag - thank you for your good wishes!

0 Replies

Combining "freedom and democracy" in one phrase may be a peculiarly western thing.

I think some Arabs may choose democracy without freedom.....that is, they may wish to create a more repressive society.

0 Replies

McTag - staying with Lieven's model for a sec, that's not the main difficulty: some combination of increasing freedom and democracy is to be found in lots more countries in recent years. Instead he focuses on areas where US aims start creating significant internal (domestic US)costs. Here's a direct Lieven quote for which unfortunately I can't provide a link as it's included in a draft article sent to me by somebody else:
_____________________________________________________________

"The American electorate will need very good cause to pay even a historically small price to sustain indirect empire through a global network of clients and allies. If, as often happened in former empires, imperial policy undermines these clients and forces a choice between direct imperial rule or allowing territories to become bases for anti-imperial "bandits," then the price of empire will escalate.

American ideology inhibits paying this price. The American foundation myth is rooted in anti-imperial struggle. Americans never equated their own conquest of a continent and destruction of its native population with European colonialism. Isolationism runs deeper than imperialism in US culture. Moreover, at the very core of empire's definition is rule without consent over many alien peoples. This flatly contradicts the hegemonic contemporary ideologies of popular sovereignty, democracy and nationalism."
_____________________________________________________________

My only point here was that Prof. Lieven provides a perfectly quantifiable model - i.e., in "clerk's" parlance, one which is easy to set out in equations, test, and obtain numerical solutions. Mathematically speaking, it's much more elegant than the Kyoto joke, to return to the topic here!

0 Replies

I'll pop back in later, but just a quick note to say how fond I am of this particular crowd of folks here.

0 Replies

We like you too bl.

0 Replies

Henderson and Castles (2 highly respected statisticians, heads of the OECD and the Australian Bureau of Statistics respectively) point out yet another unintended consequence of the Kyoto folly - its economic effects will make global warming worse:
_____________________________________________________________

"If Henderson/Castles are right, projections of future CO2 and so global warming are vastly overstated. The flaw is at the very source of the cascading beliefs.

If they are wrong, there ain't a damm thing that the developed world can do about global warming. Kyoto is the greatest act of pointlessness in human history.

Because energy-chewing, carbon-spewing growth in the developing world, especially China - all of whom are not subject to Kyoto carbon controls - will swamp any miserable savings in the developed world.

Worse, precisely because of the carbon control arbitrage, economic activity will be switched from lower-carbon centres in the developed world to higher-carbon centres in the developing world."http://finance.news.com.au/story/0,10166,12264046-521,00.html
_____________________________________________________________

0 Replies

Quote:

I suppose that does make me a "clerk" as charmingly observed earlier

Helen

I simply could not resist that sentence, wishing dearly that I might see your and thomas' reaction on reading it. Kiss.

0 Replies

Quote:

Worse, precisely because of the carbon control arbitrage, economic activity will be switched from lower-carbon centres in the developed world to higher-carbon centres in the developing world."

Now that is a notion that's worried me as well.

thomas

You're forgiven on Gang of Five. I'm in the middle of four incredible books myself and one lifetime is not nearly enough even if we omit consideration of ladies.

I can't follow you guys through the science and math, nor through the economics, I simply am too incompetent in these areas. That leaves me with the rather dangerous option of trusting voices I deem credible and bringing what I know of the dynamics of social/human behavior to estimating which voices have an interest in lying through their teeth.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
I can't follow you guys through the science and math, nor through the economics, I simply am too incompetent in these areas. That leaves me with the rather dangerous option of trusting voices I deem credible and bringing what I know of the dynamics of social/human behavior to estimating which voices have an interest in lying through their teeth.

Sometimes the BS meter is all we have to rely on. Blatham says it more elegantly, of course.

0 Replies

Roger - brevity is the soul of elegance, and the Kyoto accords are hot air.

Nice to see you as usual!

0 Replies

Ye seekers after truth, make haste to the front page of The Independent today.

Unfortunately the main article is pay-per-view, but the gist of it is counter to the beliefs of our academics here.

Quote:

Top stories The final proof

Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans

A conspiracy theory that grows more implausible by the day
19 February 2005

It is appropriate that in the week in which the Kyoto Protocol finally came into effect, we have been given irrefutable proof that the earth is heating up at an unnatural rate - and that is being caused by human actions. Dr Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, presented a paper to a prestigious scientific conference in Washington this week that ought to dispel any lingering doubts over mankind's responsibility for climate change.

http://www.independent.co.uk/

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know