1. Conservatism and climate change.
3. Fifteen travel tips, mostly for not-so-safe places.
4. Austan Goolsbee responds to critics.
6. Austan Goolsbee responds to critics.
Assorted links
Previous post: Betting markets in everything
Next post: “A movie lover’s movie…”
It’s interesting Goolsbee criticizes Paulson for certain unnamed things, yet he uses a defense that would be easily as applicable to the actions of the Bush Administration (throwing people into the pool to save them from a burning hotel). Considering that most of the legal authority the Obama Administration is using to help avoid an aggressive deleveraging process is a hangover from the Bush Administration.
I think this is an example of how the Obama Administration assumes their paradigm is universal, therefore the quibbling should only be over what conclusions may or may not be drawn from their paradigm, and disputes should only be on whether the actualized difference from the ideal paradigm is optimal.
As well, the torrent of criticism is the result of the projected fiscal deficits in FY 2019. That deficit has attracted much more criticism than this year’s deficit, as people would hopefully realize the massive loss in revenues due to deteriorating economic conditions.
If the repetition of the Goolsbee link after the deja vu link is intentional then it is very funny.
I like this travel trip:
“10. Don’t wear a nice watch, for that suggests a fat wallet and also makes a target. I learned that lesson on my first trip to the Philippines: a robber with a machete had just encountered a Japanese businessman with a Rolex — who now, alas, has only one hand.”
wow. I think I’ll stick to western Europe for my my “exotic” travels.
“If correlation doesn’t prove causation, what does? Taken to its logical conclusion, you could observe the same result in a hundred experiments and dismiss it as merely a strong correlation. Correlation doesn’t prove causation when there is no plausible link between two phenomena, or when there is some more plausible cause. But if there is a plausible link, then correlation is very strong evidence for causation. The correlation-causation caveat is routinely used in the social sciences to deny any causal connection that is inconvenient or embarrassing to the denier’s ideology. When you have increases in a gas known to trap heat, and temperature rises, correlation does prove causation.”
Could it be that a warmer atmosphere causes carbon dioxide to be released into the air (e.g. from the ocean)? It certainly could, though I have no clue about the science. I think the correlation-causation dilemma is stronger than the writer acknowledges here. Likely one phenomenon causes the other (or some third phenomenon causes the first two), but he cannot make the assertion he makes based on logic–free from further evidence–alone.
The Science in Society blog notes a structural problem in the climate change debate:
The climate change debate is unusual in that scientists are understood as being almost monolithically on one side of the debate; in the public eye it is common to view it as The Scientists vs. The Politicians. Part of this phenomenon is structural: even under ideal cases, the debate about costs and benefits are split across disciplines. One technocratic approach to evaluating climate change would be as follows:
1. Climate scientists estimate the extent of anthropogenic climate change, creating a graph of emitted greenhouse gases vs oC change in temperature, with nice error bars.
2. Economists calculate the costs of any arbitrary temperature change, along with the costs of an adjustment to any arbitrary CO2 emission level. They find the point at which marginal cost equals marginal benefit.
3. Political scientists refine this estimate by calculating the probable public-choice inefficiencies of government policies. They formulate the optimal policy, which will probably reduce emissions slightly less than the economists’ model proposes.
Even in this model, when everyone stays inside their disciplinary lines, scientists will be in the position of pointing out the costs of our current choices. It is up to the social scientists to say yes, this is true, but the adjustment to lower emissions levels is not costless.
Given these roles, and given that scientists, politicians, and journalists all have their own axes to grind, it is not surprising that scientists are often presented as being monolithically on the interventionist side on the climate change debate. The only way for their research not to be simplified into “Needs Action Now!† is if it claimed that either climate is static or that climate cannot be changed by man, both of which are almost certainly false.
LOL @ deja vu gag
Tyler, you are such a card.
On the travel tips, when I lived in Russia keeping your passport in your pants was generally seen as a bad idea. There you need it a lot- when buying tickets, at hotels, etc. You need to show it more often then you would a drivers license most of the time in the US. But, constantly having to take it out of your pants is not only a pain but shows you as a tourist and so a mark, someone who can be robbed or shook down by the police (the group most likely to be doing the shaking there- no need for it to be fake police). It’s much better to keep it in your pocket with a passport protector/cover of the sort that Russians use themselves.
I rather liked the climate change article. What’s the fuss? To me, he seemed to make the following points:
1. There is a demonstrated warming trend over some longish period of time
2. It is very plausible that a cause/effect relationship exists between CO2 buildup in the atmosphere and rising temperatures, due to an effect that we know exists
3. A bunch of arguments put forward by skeptics are just silly
4. Beyond that, it’s complicated
(By “it’s complicated” I mean that he acknowledges that there are difficult questions of cost and benefit that must be carefully weighed before taking action.) I consider myself a libertarian, and certainly I’m no climate change enthusiast. Still, I hardly see a reason to object to any of this.
“The real question is: why did Tyler post this link?”
4. To show the poor quality of the GW arguement.
I think the climatologists should hand off the data to real statisticians to analyze. Also, allowing others to see the data and methods of their models, as is the norm, would go a long way for their credibility.
There have been so many antics with their data and conclusions that the GW crowd may need a new set of scientists to lead the charge, as their credibility is compromised beyond repair.
the GW article ignores the real question, even if it identifies it: is it worth trying to do anything about GW (leaving aside whether we actually can given the political and economic realities)? showing the earth is warming? that’s just temperature readings. showing humans increasing warming? not so complicated to show (we expend lots of energy, obviously), even if pinning down exactly how much may be tricky.
but isn’t the identified but unanswered question — figuring out whether it’s worth caring? — the only one worth adressing at this point? because if it’s not worth caring, we don’t have to worry about whether the science is right or not, we don’t do anything regardless. (if we decide we should care, then we can turn to the even harder question of how to get anything done given, you know, reality.)
a_c :”if it claimed that either climate is static or that climate cannot be changed by man, both of which are almost certainly false.”
Why is it “almost certainly false” that climate cannot be changed by man? Do you really understand the assumptions which form the basis for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming promoted by Al Gore and the IPCC?
This is a fallacy. We cannot accurately predict who will die of cancer or who will die in a car crash but we can cite risk factors for either of these events occurring. CO2 is similarly a risk factor for global warming.
If you said, that more people are eating meat and, therefore, the incidence of coli-rectal cancer must increase, but it actually did not increase over the next ten years, I would say that you were wrong.
Excellent post. I’m actually surprised the use of blogs and wikis isn’t higher.
or who will die in a car crash but we can cite risk factors for either of these events occurring. CO2 is similarly a risk factor for global warming.
the incidence of coli-rectal cancer must increase, but it actually did not increase over the next ten years, I would say that you were wrong
devlet vergisi.
vergi, internet vergi dairesi, vergi kanunu ve
balantılı tüm kanun ile ilgili bilgiler mevcut çok faydalı bir sitedir.
http://www.devletvergisi.com
+++
Comments on this entry are closed.