Yesterday Pat Lightfoot, one of the readers of my Armidale Express column, asked why I had not written on climate change. I have, of course, but not in the Express. Coincidentally, Marcellous asked a question on an earlier post of mine, End of Historic Toorale Station, on my method of calculating the real costs of the acquisition of Toorale.
I need to think a bit about M's comment/question because he has raised a technical issue that I need to think through. Pat's comment led me to go back through past posts linked in some way to climate change.
We all write from our our own perspectives. I often write from a country Australia and/or New England perspective. I am especially concerned at the way in which some of the proposed responses associated with climate change ignore regional impacts. To that degree I can be accused of being parochial. But then, most of us are in one way or another. I also try to write from a public policy perspective. What are the policy options, what do they mean, how might they work?
In checking past posts, I only looked at this blog since the majority of posts on climate change are here. As is so often the case, the posts are all in a sense work in progress. I am seeking to understand. I think that the position I have now reached in my own thinking can be summarised in this way:
- On the balance I accept the majority scientific position that human induced climate change is a problem that need to be dealt with now. To wait until the science is proved right is a high risk strategy.
- To the degree that there are identifiable changes such as changes in sea levels, then we need to consider our responses to them. This holds regardless of the causes of those changes: we need to respond to the what, rather than the why. I say this because my study of history and pre-history shows that, regardless of current current climate change arguments, there have been considerable natural variations that have actually occurred quite quickly. Nature is not static.
- I have been concerned for some time that group think in the scientific community and beyond has, to some extent, crowded out alternative views and that this has dangers. Scientific group think tends to be self-correcting over time because of the nature of scientific method. However, broader group think is less subject to correction.
- Linked to three, I have been concerned at the way climate change arguments have become linked to so many disconnected issues. These arguments take the form if a (climate change) then b (add in whatever you like), when a and b are in fact disconnected or at best loosely connected. The tendency to link specific current events like the recent drought in southern Australia to climate change does not help. All this actually acts to discredit the core case.
- Again linked to three, I have been concerned at what I see as the failure in discussion to adequately explore alternative policy responses to climate change. It may be that a market based response such as an emissions trading scheme is the best response (I suspect that either an ETS or carbon tax will be necessary), but I would feel much more comfortable if there had been more public discussion of alternatives. Among other things, this would give us a much better feel for practical implications of an ETS and for supporting measures that may be needed, as well as reducing the risk of simply dumb policy responses.
I am not sure I would go beyond this at this point in terms of conclusions, beyond adding that at a purely personal level I do not find much of the current discussion between believers and non-believers especially helpful in understanding how we might respond.
Selected Past Posts
- 17 October 2006 Water, Drought and the Environment - working from facts
- 28 December 2006 Science and Political Correctness
- 2 April 2007 Counterpoint and the Climate Change Zealots
- 3 April 2007 Climate Change Zealots Revisited
- 23 April 2007 Australia's Water Wars - Early Shots
- 14 May 2007 Climate Change Revisited - very briefly
- 6 November 2008 Australia's Murray-Darling Basin - historical climate perspective
- 11 November 2008 Agriculture, the environment and Australia's future
- 15 November 2008 Saturday Morning Musings - why environmentalists (and other enthusiasts) are sometimes bad for the planet
- 6 December 2008 Saturday Morning Musings - Toorale Station and the need for balance
- 22 April 2009 Back of envelope calculations - is the purchase of Toorale Station a waste of money?
- 13 September 2009 Sunday Essay - Farming, green house gases and the importance of practical experiments- Part One
- 20 September 2009 Sunday Essay - Farming, green house gases and the importance of practical experiments- Part Two
- 27 September 2009 Sunday essay - dust storms, environmental change and the romance of agriculture
- 26 November 2009 Australian responses to climate change - a background briefing
- 9 December 2009 Climate change and policies that work
- 10 December 2009, Getting rid of carbon 1 , Getting rid of carbon 2 - a note on renewable energy
- 11 December 2009 Getting rid of carbon 3 - the importance of numbers
- 12 December 2009 Getting rid of carbon 4 - carbon farming
- 14 December 2009 Getting rid of carbon 5 - problems with measurement
- 15 December 2009 Getting rid of carbon 6 - emissions trading, Getting rid of carbon 7 - musings
- 16 December 2009 Getting rid of carbon 8 - the series ends
- 18 December 2009 More environmental jottings
- 21 December 2009 Copenhagen wash-up - the need for clarity and focus
- 25 January 2010 The lessons from the current IPCC kerfuffles
- 4 February 2010 Family history, Indian students and climate change
16 comments:
Jim
I find your careful, questioning words quite refreshing.
Mr John Quiggin has degrees in Arts and Economics (you may know of him from UNE); Mr Des Moore is academically qualified in law and economics (you may know him from your Canberra days).
Both seemingly highly regarded in their fields, yet in March this year Mr Quiggin writes in The Australian and Mr Moore refutes, ending: “Perhaps Quiggin should stick to his last”. The subject: climate change.
This has remained in my mind for two reasons:
1) I have not recently seen this particularly insulting put-down used. I think it is good that the old phrases are preserved – even where so laughably inappropriate.
2) Neither of these two highly qualified gentlemen have qualifications in any area of “science” - as I understand that term – much less that involved with climate change.
My point?
These two noisy, unqualified people are part of the problem; they can never be part of any solution, simply because they presume to speak outside their various fields of expertise, and thereby reduce the “airspace” available to those more properly qualified.
On the other hand, if the subject had been the practical implementation of an ETS...
Regards
kvd
Thanks, KVD,
You know, I had forgotten that John Q did his PhD at UNE.He also worked at BAE. I tried to check exact dates out of curiosity, but couldn't find the exact details.
I don't think that I have met John, my memory is uncertain and hence the date checks, but Des was in Treasury when I was there.
Both, as you note, are men of strong views expressed strongly. One of my problems is that I find I tend to disagree with both of them! This makes it difficult to cut through to the points they are trying to make.
Like you, I would be happier if they focused on their core strengths. In fairness to John Q (I haven't read much of Des's stuff recently), I find a fair bit of useful material when I do cut through. His blog is actually on my regular read list.
You are gracious Jim; I am not so.
That you "tend to disagree with both" is a point in your favour.
Now I'm off to purchase "Quiggin on Brain Surgery" and "Moore's Easy Car Maintenance"
Or maybe not, if you have well-thumbed copies.
kvd
Jim
Not to hijack a serious post, but when was the last time you heard/saw that wonderful put-down "he should stick to his last"?
It was worth it just for reading that.
kvd
A long while, David. It is a very evocative phrase. I bet you my daughters don't know it!
You might like to read this:http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/04/surprise_climategate_wasnt_the_1.html?wprss=postpartisan
Thanks, Ramana. Read with interest. I think that "climategate" shows both the tendency for partisan exageration and the capacity of science to self-correct.
Anonymous is offering a silly false equivalence. I am endorsing the conclusions of mainstream science. I don't claim special expertise, but my qualifications are sufficient to understand what these conclusions are, and to discuss their policy implications, which is what I do.
Moore rejects mainstream science, despite, as anon observes, no qualifications whatsoever for his conclusions.
In fact, Jim, your own position of accepting mainstream science "on balance" is far more open to anon's criticism. What expertise do you have that could justify any position other than acceptance?
Hi John and welcome. I haven't forgotten that I still owe you a post on another matter!
Dealing with the authority question first. Three points.
First, I have seen enough cases where strongly held scientific conclusions have been subsequently invalidated to make me cautious. Medicine is a case in point. Leaving aside broader based philosophical issues (Popper, Kuhn),quite a bit of the discussion around evidence based medicine deals with the reasons why apparently science and evidence based conclusions go wrong.
Secondly, wearing my history/prehistory hat, it is quite clear that there have been major climatic variations in the past and that these have sometimes happened quite quickly in human terms.
This is not to mount a denialist argument, although it did add to my initial caution. Rather, it means that I may accept that a change is happening without necessarily accepting the stated reasons for that change.
This brings me to my third point. The scientific climate change work involves complex modelling. Wearing my economist's hat, I have worked with enough econometric models to have gained some understanding of modelling problems, as well as the mis-use to which results can be put.
I said in a response to David that I would be happier if you and Des focused on your core strengths. I also said that one of my problems is that I find I tend to disagree with both of you!
My English was not as precise as it should have been because I was in conversation mode with a long standing commentator.
We all have ideological positions.
My problem with people like Des and Alan Moran (Alan was in fact my boss for a period) is that, at least as I perceive it, their ideological position conditions their approach to the science.
I fully accept that you focus on the policy implications, although I would suggest gently that sometimes your choice of words actually strays into judgements and opionions about those who disagree with you on the science. Perhaps the same could be said of me.
I, too, want to focus on the policy implications. I actually think (and I am sure that you would agree with me here) that debates about the general science involved are now a waste of time.
If no action is taken and the science is wrong, then there will be some waste of resources that can be corrected. If no action is taken and the science is right, then the costs will be very high.
The issue is what we do and how.
Dear Jim
Mr Quiggin writes:
I am endorsing the conclusions of mainstream science. I don't claim special expertise, but my qualifications are sufficient to understand what these conclusions are, and to discuss their policy implications, which is what I do.
Moore rejects mainstream science, despite, as anon observes, no qualifications whatsoever for his conclusions.
The simple point I was making was that neither Mr Quiggin nor Mr Moore appear qualified either to endorse or to reject the “conclusions of mainstream science” on the topic of AGW, and therefore the academic to and fro they engaged in was simply a waste of valuable “airspace” on this specific issue.
This means, I suppose, that there is indeed a sort of “silly equivalence” in their respective positions. I would not have put it like that, but I will defer to Mr Quiggin.
If they would both just confine themselves to thoughtful commentary upon the “policy implications” (and both appear well qualified) then I would be happy to read same.
I believe I ended with that in my initial comment.
Lastly Jim. I believe you have my full name, and business and personal email contact points. If not, I’m happy to email you (yet) again.
kvd
Hi David. Yes, I do have all your contact details. Please feel free, however, to continue sending me emails!
Anon/David shows why we make so little progress here.
It's impossible to make any sensible contribution on economic policy in the absence of a scientific basis for it. The choices are
(i) work with the (admittedly fallible, but better than any alternative) findings of mainstream science
(ii) set yourself up as a judge of whether mainstream science should be followed or not
(iii) maintain agnosticism and make policy at random
You appear to favor (ii) and anon to favor (iii).
Jim
(And I’m very conscious of your latest posting of that Canadian lawsuit. Isn’t it great! Now the lawyers will sort out this “science stuff”.)
Referring to Mr Quiggin’s points:
(i) “admittedly fallible, but better than any alternative”
I apply the same reasoning when I keep on the left whilst driving, but I claim no scientific expertise.
(ii) set yourself up as a judge…
My stated wish was to hear from qualified people - not loud people.
(iii) agnosticism and policy at random
accept the first epithet(?); am mildly insulted by the second.
Now back to the first sentence: “It's impossible to make any sensible contribution on economic policy in the absence of a scientific basis for it.”
I agree with that – except:
(a) I would mildly dispute any connection between science and economics.
(b) I would gently dispute any economist’s right to comment upon scientific matters.
But if I am gently or even mildly defaming anyone here, then please accept my abject apologies; whatever they insist they need to insist is ok by me.
Regards
kvd
David, when I put up that post on the Weaver I wasn't thinking of the discussion here at all. It's just a very interesting case that bears upon the operations of the internet.
I do wonder if in fact you and John are really in agreement on one key issue.
John wrote:
"It's impossible to make any sensible contribution on economic policy in the absence of a scientific basis for it. The choices are
(i) work with the (admittedly fallible, but better than any alternative) findings of mainstream science
(ii) set yourself up as a judge of whether mainstream science should be followed or not
(iii) maintain agnosticism and make policy at random."
Now if I read you both correctly, you are actually in agreement on (i). I can live with being parked in (ii), although I would want to qualify the wording much more tightly than John put it.
I might write something on (ii) at some point to set out what I actually believe.
Leaving aside the description of economics as a dismal science, I would argue that economics can be classified as a science because it involves a method of thinking whose results can be subject to test. However, it is also very much part of the humanities.
Jim
I made mention of that legal case as a reminder to myself to maintain politeness.
Your analysis is correct. I very much support the view that the scientific findings should be accepted, and acted upon. You earlier wrote “The issue is what we do now”. I completely agree.
The above discussion is a small side issue – and I’m sorry to have taken your time by raising it.
Regards
kvd
No David, I am glad that you did although our phrasing upset John.
From my viewpoint, the discussion has been helpful not just in clarifying where you stand, but in helping me think through another issue, the relationships between science and policy.
This is actually a subset of a broader issue that I have written about in the context of law and medicine, the assertion that particular types of thought cannot be challenged by those lacking specialist expertise in the area, that the advice of the expert must be accepted. I think that it's time to revisit this.
Post a Comment