I debated Des Moore on the issue of Global Warming and Uncertainty: Sensible Policy Responses at the Victorian Branch of the Economic Society of Australia last Friday. The powerpoints for my presentation are here. It was an animated discussed with Des rejecting mainstream climate science and me endorsing it. Apart from this I also tried to summarise my views as to how uncertainty conditions the economic analysis of policies to address climate change. The debate by the way was held in the ACCC meeting room, 360/35 Elizabeth St, Melbourne – what fantastic views on the city and Port Phillip Bay!
Update: Here is Quadrant’s partisan – although less partisan than usual – review of the debate. The last paragraph is accurate.
I was just about to ask you for your slides – thanks for posting up these up, Harry.
I found the debate fascinating – but not for the expected reasons. I thought it was going to be about the economics of policy choice under uncertainty, but it ended up being about climate science. The ‘debate’ quickly hit an impasse – between the skeptics and non-skeptics of ‘mainstream’ climate science. Question-time was dominated by people who were arguing that ‘mainstream’ climate science is either wrong or not as ‘mainstream’ as we are led to believe. (nb. I don’t remember any non-skeptics speak up at all apart from yourself. Maybe they include economists that didn’t pride themselves on being part-time climate scientists!)
I found this both fascinating and alarming. It was an economic society event. Presumably, attended by economists mostly. The chair opened the debate noting that the main theme wasn’t climate science but what we do given what we know (and uncertainty). I went away thinking it was mostly (with the exception of your presentation) economists pretending to be climate scientists. I’m all for evidence-based policy and cost-benefit analysis, but the responses of the skeptics reminded me a little bit of the times when I dealt with lawyers who were trying a little too hard to be economists (your analogy of physicist advising on economics resonated with me). You should always question. But both sides seem to be accusing the other of ‘blind faith’ and ‘delusion’. The question then is – who is more likely to be mis-/under-informed?
There comes a time in deliberations when one has to recognise one’s bounded rationality; rely on the best experts in the business and the weight of the best information reasonably available at the time (our courts are used to this); acknowledge that the experts have the comparative (and probably also the absolute) advantage; and realise that the costs (and risks) of ignoring their advice increases exponentially; and see that the debate is becoming unconstructive.
I enjoyed your presentation on Friday. Unfortunately, I’m always a little timid at these things and not fast enough (or rehearsed enough) to think of rebuttals to the Quadrant crew who seemed to have been bussed in en mass. A few points came to mind as I wandered off to the NGV aftewards:
* Des is still presenting the Medieval Warming as if it were global, the more I read, the more it seems localised to areas in the North Atlantic, and then not as warm as previously thought;
* The old furphy of the lag between warming and CO2 concentrations fits nicely into a Milankovich forced warming, the issue is that we are now seeing warming that is outside of the assumed parameters for Milankovich forcing and CO2 seems to be the chief culprit;
* Des is happy to bag science when it does not suit his argument but wants it to save him if he has backed the wrong horse; and,
* Just what science is practised by our young, vocal friend, where is he published and who are his employers. I find it hard to believe he is a climatologist, oceanographer or atmospheric science specialist.
Oh before I forget, the questions about the Old Kingdom and Sind (on the Indus) seem to be best addressed with reference to wholesale deforestation/devegetaion, with consequent water and topsoil loss.
Thanks again for the presentation.
Thanks Tom and Laurie for your comments.
I agree with you Tom that it is awkward to be put in the position of defending science. I did try to say quite a bit about the economics of uncertainty. I mean how could public policy be based on the views of people who graph drought prevalence against temperature in the MDB and see this as evidence against AGW? The same people repeatedly state (without reference to refuting claims) that climate change stopped in 1998. It is a silly position.
The fact that the gang from Quadrant turned up was unsurprising as it was advertised at their website. They didn’t bother me at all.
It is interesting that while these purveyors of junk science clamor on about freedom to express views that Quadrant itself only publishes denialist tracts. It has no credibility as a magazine representing sensible conservative opinion in Australia because it has abandoned science.
What blog script do you use on your site ?