Comments
Economists and Climate Science: A Critique by David Henderson
David Henderson’s paper entitled ‘Economists and Climate Science: A Critique’ is due to appear in the coming issue (Volume 10 Number 1) of World Economics.
This article presents a critique of the characteristic treatment by economists of issues relating to climate science, which appears as uncritical and over-presumptive. I draw on a range of illustrative cases, with the main focus on six recent and important contributions. I argue that the authors and sources concerned, along with other economists, have (1) accepted too readily the idea that received opinion on global warming is firmly grounded on scientific findings which can no longer be seriously questioned, (2) placed unwarranted trust in the official advisory process that governments have created and rely on in this area, and (3) disregarded evidence which puts that process in question. Hence there is a missing dimension in their treatment of policy aspects: they have not caught on to the need to strengthen the basis of policy, by making the advisory process more objective and professionally watertight.
The paper concludes:
Among economists today, both within and outside official circles, it is widely believed, or just presumed, first, that prevailing scientific opinion as to the reality and threat of AGW can no longer be seriously questioned, and second, that the established official advisory process from which that opinion chiefly emerges is objective and authoritative. This is not the right point of departure. In the handling of climate change issues generally, by economists among many others, an alternative framework is needed – less presumptive, more inclusive, more professionally watertight, and more attuned to the huge uncertainties that remain. A leading task of policy, currently unrecognised as such by many economists, should be to establish such a framework and procedures that give effect to it. Until the case for precautionary action on these lines is more widely recognised within the profession, the contribution of economists to the climate change debate will fall well short of what it could be.
David Henderson was formerly Head of the Economics and Statistics Department of the OECD, and is currently a Visiting Professor at the Westminster Business School, London.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
An extremly important contribution. The science is not settled and conclusions and summaries are usually NOT based on new findings post 2006. New research results on negative vs. positive feedback indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the models.
March 29th, 2009 at 5:51 am
Well said Jan.
I think we need an open discussion on what is happening– not closed minds
March 30th, 2009 at 12:40 am
The relationship between economics and climate science is not about the proper application of science; it is about the promotion of a political agenda whose goal is to change our social order and economic order to a system that is “fair”. Yes, it is a great idea — the new paradigm will be “fair” for those at the top who will always be able to buy carbon credits and fly around on private jets or AF1 and live in luxury at the people’s expense.
Cap and trade, the moving of factories from productive societies to those that are impoverished, and the de-evolution of our energy systems in the name of “renewables” are examples of my above paragraph.
David Henderson’s point is right-on, but it will not be taken seriously by the politicians who hold power; to do so would undermine the political base that has given them the right to fly on private jets anytime they wish and whose jet fuel is paid for with tax money! Meanwhile, our thermostats will be electrinically adjusted by a remotely located beaurocrat, we will have to use public transportation exclusively, and other freedoms will be curtailed because of the god-awful expense involved with travel and other forms of recreation.
March 30th, 2009 at 1:36 am
MarkM-Fair for all pigs, but some more than others?
Off topic, but Roy Spencer has an update on when his latest research may be published:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/03/set-phasers-on-stun/
March 30th, 2009 at 2:10 am
Andrew:
You summed-up my statement in one small sentence! Thanks.
Refresh my memory, what book did that line come from?
markm
March 30th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Mark M— nicely put
March 30th, 2009 at 5:58 am
George Orwell’s Animal Farm. The exact line is “All Pigs are Equal, But some are more Equal than Others.”