"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Friday, May 11, 2007

Global Warming Updates

NASA shows some gumption.

The AAPG considers backing off. (Compare with their previous position.)


Fergus said...

Had you noticed in the AAPG statement that the cited 'recent scientific research' dates from up to 1999, but nothing subsequent to that. Could there be a reason for this? Has anyone pointed out to the AAPG that this scientific basis for claiming no support for AGW may since have been superceded, or revised? Perhaps you could recommend a more up-to-date summary of the evidence to them?

Michael Tobis said...

Don't worry Fergus. I know enough about the situation to assure you that the people drafting the new statement know exactly what they are talking about.

The trouble is that there is some resistance from the rank and file, many of whom continue to believe things that really can't possibly be true.

Nils Simon said...

Michael, you need to correct your link to the proposed new statement:


Right now, both of your links refer to the actual policy.

Michael Tobis said...

Fixed. Thank you Nils.

David Duff said...

Unfortunately and inadvertently (or perhaps not, now I think about it), you left off the 'Comments' link in the post above and I just wanted to say, in the nicest possible way, that whilst I am very, very happy for you to volunteer your 11$ to save the world, I would be exceedingly unhappy if you were to utilise the power of the state to steal my £5.50 for the same purpose!

bmcworldcitizen said...

Hi Guys!

This is a revamp of a video about GW I did a few months ago, which I think you posted on your site. I used the term anthropomorphic instead of anthropogenic. Silly and rather embarrassingJ That’s corrected now, and I’ve tightened up the voice over so it’s a but shorter, coming in at about 5 mins.


It also touches on the scientific method, and the damage that creationism has done to science in general, so although not the typical fare of your site, it may be of interest.

If the video helps your audience, by all means use it.


Brian Coughlan

Michael Tobis said...

Mr. Duff, please advocate a refund of all the massive subsidies toward highways, airports, heavy industry and other high impact activities to the benefit of those of us try to avoid their use.

If you do so, I would be willing to reconsider my intention to advocate that you be taxed considerably in excess of eleven dollars to bring the system under something approaching sustainability.

Unless that happens, you really haven't got anything resembling a point worth making. Even so you would be wrong, but at least you wouldn't be inconsistent.

David Duff said...

Dear Mr. Tobis (as we seem to be on formal terms today), I would be very happy to advocate the ending of *all* subsidies for anything because, of course, they are taxation by a different name.

Do we have a deal?

Oh, and one day you must explain how taxation can create sustainability, whatever that is!