Looking Away from Misrepresentations of Science in Policy Debate Related to Disasters and Climate Change
November 15th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
For me the most amazing aspect of the repeated misrepresentation of science related to disasters and climate change is not that political advocates look to cherry pick science or go beyond the state of the science. What is most amazing is that in the face of incontrovertible and repeated misrepresentation that the overwhelming majority of scientists, the media, and responsible advocacy groups have remained mute (with a few notable exceptions such as Hans von Storch).
More than anything else, even the misrepresentations themselves, the collective willingness to overlook bad policy arguments unsupported (or even contradicted) by the current state of science while at the same time trumpeting the importance of scientific consensus is evidence of the comprehensive and pathological politicization of science in the policy debate over global warming. If climate scientists ever wonder why they are looked upon with suspicion among some people in society, they need look no further in their willingness to compromise their own intellectual standards in policy debate on the issue of disasters and climate change.
Here are just some of the misrepresentations of science in policy discussions related to disasters and climate change from the Prometheus archives:
Misrepresentation by ABI of UK Foresight flood assessment
Misrepresentation by UNEP of disaster loss trends
Misrepresentation by former head of IPCC of disaster loss trends
Misrepresentation by New York Times of trends in disaster losses
Misrepresentation by editor of Science of detection and attribution of trends in extreme events
Misrepresentation by editor of Science of attribution of Katrina to greenhouse gas emissions
Misrepresentation of literature of disaster trends and climate in article in Science
Misrepresentation of ABI report on future tropical cyclone losses
Misrepresentation by Al Gore of state of hurricane science and attribution of Katrina
Misrepresentation by Time of science of hurricanes and attribution of Katrina
Misrepresentation by IPCC WG II of storm surge impacts research
Misrepresentation by AGU of science of seasonal hurricane forecast skill
Misrepresentation in the Washington Post of the science of disaster trends and future impacts
Misrepresentation in Stern report of trends in disaster losses and projections of future costs
Misrepresentation by UNEP of trends and projections in disaster losses
November 15th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
It seems that the choice is to remain mute or be tarred with the “big oil apologist” brush, or worse.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
Roger,
Why is climate change so special, that it should be immune to misrepresentation, both inadvertent and willful?
I hypothesize that misrepresentation of science (both natural and social) is positively correlated with its public policy significance.
I am more familiar with human health risk assessment than climate change risk assessment. Long before both global warming and its antecedent, the coming ice age, we had cancer risk assessment. Misrepresentation is explicitly built into the design of cancer risk assessment. Leaving aside biological questions, cancer dose-response is estimated using the 95% confidence interval on the maximum likelihood estimate. In economics, purposefully using a biased estimator would be considered scientific misconduct. In human health risk assessment, it is the consensus practice. All cancer risk is estimated this way — except, quite interestingly, cancer risk from known human carcinogens such as ionizing radiation. (I further hypothesize that the reason for this exception is that health physicists first estimated cancer risk before it the issue became a public policy concern.
The “pathology” of misrepresentation has afflicted economic policy since before science was born — er, before anyone thought science was important enough to use as the basis for public policy. Economic illiteracy in the public and the press both enables misrepresentation to occur and magnifies its effect. I would expect nothing different for science. Indeed, here in Virginia elementary science education is primarily about environmental policy, and so misrepresentation flourishes. Kids don’t learn any science until they get to high school.
The public does not understand how switches turn on household electric lights. Thus, the public could easily be misled if only there were value to be captured. But there isn’t any value, so it doesn’t happen. Surely you can think of a hundred examples where science is not misrepresented; I predict that in each case it doesn’t matter for public decision-making.
I commend to you a delightful novel by Christopher Buckley, “Little Green Men.” The premise is that the government performed “alien abductions” to establish and maintain public support for the space program. In the novel, this low-level bit of strategic misrepresentation gets a wee bit out of control.
November 15th, 2006 at 4:28 pm
I think it is extremely revealing that mis-representations of the science in regards to connections between “Global Warming” and “Natural Disasters” such as those listed above are never, without exception, corrected by the climate-change community.
While at the same time fictional novels, press releases, movies, and political speeches, hearings, and reports that mis-represent the science are always slated for massive rebuttal by the climate-change community. These latter information sources in general have nothing scientific about them.
These are characteristics of a campaign being conducted by ’scientists’; they are not characteristics of science.
November 15th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
“More than anything else, even the misrepresentations themselves, the collective willingness to overlook bad policy arguments unsupported (or even contradicted) by the current state of science while at the same time trumpeting the importance of scientific consensus is evidence of the comprehensive and pathological politicization of science in the policy debate over global warming.”
As I’ve written before (more than once) environmental science is sick. And just like an alcoholic or someone with cancer, the first step towards getting well is recognizing one is sick. You and your father are performing a very valuable service.
I only hope the patient isn’t terminal.
November 15th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
The profound, and probably incurable, corruption of the environmental activists, including those with Ph.D.s, is supported and strengthened by their equally-sleazy allies in government and the media. If hysteria works to get them more and better jobs, more influence and more money, any lie is worth it. After all, it is for a good cause, right?
November 15th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
“I hypothesize that misrepresentation of science (both natural and social) is positively correlated with its public policy significance.”
The more money involved, the more misrepresentation.
There’s a lot more money going for the Kyoto crowd than the oil companies that are against it.
The core of the money corruption are the carbon credit trading schemes. A myriad of ways to launder, hide, and gain lucre.
The British are good at this con game. Britain has to shut down 10% of their power plants in the upcoming years to meet EU pollution standards. How on earth could this be a profitable situation? Carbon credit trading! Earn credits for reducing carbon outputs you had to reduce anyway and trade them for cash to polluters elswhere who will pay for the right to continue polluting! Make sure the U.N. gets a cut for salary and for fronting laughably fraudulent global warming reports.
Tone Blair’s smirky smile after he pulled the con on Schwarzenneger was a sight to behold.
November 15th, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Richard- Thanks for your comments. Who said climate change was special? My view is that bad poilcy arguments are likely to be correlated with bad policy. Whether the issue is going to war in Iraq or environmental issues we should strive for policies that can have their intended effects. Surely you wouldn’t disagree?
I think that Dan Brown covered similar turf with “Deception Point.”
Thanks!
November 16th, 2006 at 4:25 am
I know too little about other areas to say whether climate is special.
Climate is very nuanced, though, while journalists do not take the time for these nuances. This is not for lack of ability. Just compare the environment pages to the politics pages or even the sports pages of any newspaper. Journalists can put in any amount of complication and nuance.
As long as climate policy is peripheral, journalists will be like this — and politicians will prefer empty but headline-grabbing action.
Roger’s concern is about the role of scientists, though. Partly this is distorted by journalists.
Partly it is lack of training. Meteorologists used to be locked up in the ivory tower — and no one ever prepared them for their current central role in policy. Many of them are simply completely out of their depth, without realising that.
As a stark example, a meteorologist colleague of mine made a fortune in windmills. Based on that, ne now believes that wind power is good for the economy — but he just happened to be at the receiving end of a generous subsidy.
A crucial part of the education of an economist is policy advice. Economists are taught how to mislead, and how to see through misleading, inadvertant and otherwise; and how messages are amplified and distorted in policy. The reason is simple. Economists sit in powerful position, and they’d better be aware of the abuse to that power.
Meteorologists are now more powerful than ever. Their training should be adapted to that.
November 16th, 2006 at 7:28 am
Roger,
I concede that you did not explicitly say that climate change was special, or that the problem you observe is new. Nevertheless, the tone and content of your post surely implies both. Dog bites man is not news, yet your post was news — okay, a “news roundup” with “news analysis.”
I think I agree with your statement that bad policy arguments are correlated with bad policy. This is a correlation, however, and not a deterministic rule. Sometimes, good policy cannot be achieved relying on good policy arguments alone, or bad policy cannot be thwarted by good policy arguments alone. It may be true that on the inside, politics is the art of compromise. But on the outside, politics is the art of salesmanship.
Where we are likely to be in firmest agreement is on the following principle: Scientists may choose to be either scientists or political actors, but not both, and they should declare publicly at the outset of debate which they choose to be so that we can judge their work and pronouncements according to the correct standard. The same goes for environment reporters: They may choose to be neutral transmitters of information or advocates of environmental values, but not both, and they should declare up front which it is that they choose to be.
In at least a colloquial sense, it is scientific misconduct for declared scientists to behave as political actors. It is journalistic misconduct for a declared reporter to behave as an advocate.
In human health risk assessment, scientists have contravened this principle for decades. Indeed, they are trained to do so in graduate school. They secure grants in large part by their perceived ability to use research to advance political agendas. They are tenured based as much on their effectiveness as political actors as on their scholarship. In short, scientists in this area reject the principle that science and politics ought to be clearly distinguished, if not separated. Perhaps you are observing the same phenomenon creeping into climate change science.
November 16th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Richard T,
The difference between your meteorologist colleague who made a killing on windmills and an economist colleague who might have done the same is rather simple: The meteorologist knew a lot about weather and assumed that he understood economics. An economist doing the same thing would know that he had no clue why windmills worked but would understand that his profit depended only on his ability to exploit the subsidy.
In my experience with reporters, they tend to be reasonably (but not exceptionally) bright people with an ability to write quickly and well, and they are not ashamed to behave obnoxiously. When meeting deadline conflicts with any other value (including accuracy), deadline prevails.
They also tend to be lazy. That is why we have such a vibrant industry devoted to writing press releases. If reporters were diligent, that market would not exist. But because they are not, news stories often consist of repackaged press releases.
Reporters develop a Rolodex based on sources who have given them good quotes. If you are quotable, they will call back; it doesn’t matter whether what you have to say is scientifically supported so long as it’s provocative. Your chances of being quotable decline precipitously if you say science is “nuanced” or “complex” or something else like that. Snore. If you say, “The Earth is roasting like a side of beef on the BBQ,” you may get quoted.
Reporters frequently invent quotes. If you are curt with them or unhelpful, there is a good chance you will get a quote that makes you look bad. The fastest way to get a bad invented quote attributed to you is to tell them that their preconceived narrative is wrong. Think of this in incentive terms: You are saying that they need to start over. How many of your PhD students would like to hear that when you review their thesis proposals? If they could get even with you, why wouldn’t they do so?
November 16th, 2006 at 7:59 am
Roger,
One more thing. I have not read “Deception Point” but gather based on Brown’s other books that it is intended to be taken seriously. Chris Buckley’s book is not. It’s a satire, and hilarious.
RBB
November 16th, 2006 at 11:46 am
Roger,
What exactly did Gore misrepresent in the above posting that you link to?
The posting was based on your assumptions of what An Inconvenient Truth was to be about. I don’t know if Gore actually misrepresented anything and that particular posting didn’t enlighten me the least.
It would be rather interesting if you’d comment on the movie, now that you’ve seen it, and tell us if your assumption was correct or not.
November 16th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Kim- Thanks for your question.
Gore’s imagery of a tropical cyclone coming out of a smokestack implies a cause-effect relationship that is not consistent with the science:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000976
At best it is a highly selective cherry picking of a subset of scientific research. So the promotional material did in fact misrepresent the science to make a political point.
As far as the movie itself there were several obvious misrepresentations of the science of disasters, including a suggestion that the increasing economic damage around the world associated with extreme weather was due to greenhouse gases.
The use of the Katrina images, no doubt powerfully evocative, was misleading as well. Katrina was a human-caused disaster, but not in the way suggested in the movie. Furtehr none of the solutions proposed by Gore would do anything to prevent future Katrina’s from happening. This was a misrepresentation of the causes of Katrina as well as the policy actions that would be effective in the face of future disasters.
See, e.g.:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1835-2005.37.pdf
November 16th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Richard B:
I know journalists. Their job is to sell papers. And that is what they do.
I think that Roger wonders is how it can be that the public wants to read some good ol’ mud-slinging on climate change, rather than a proper discussion. And why the scientific community continues to provide mud.
In my previous post, I wrote about academic training. In retrospect, Stern provides rather a bad example of an economist.
In my opinion, the public does not think that climate change is as serious a matter as sports and elections, and therefore does not demand a serious treatment in the media. Vain scientists spend their days thinking up catchy slogans rather than do research.
All very human, but it does not solve the climate problem.
November 16th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
Roger, this post presents several puzzles.
First, I’m puzzling over your support in another thread for Naomi Oreske’s conclusions and do not dispute her views on Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, but feel the need to nitpick Al Gore’s similar Inconvenient Truth. Does this imply that you disagree with Oreske’s conclusion that “there is no need to wait for proof, no need to demand it, and no basis to expect it?”
Second, the implicit premises of your post is odd. You profess amazement “in the face of incontrovertible and repeated misrepresentation that the overwhelming majority of scientists, the media, and responsible advocacy groups have remained mute,” and suggest a collective obligation to policy the public debate for “bad policy arguments unsupported (or even contradicted) by the current state of science.”
Is there some general obligation of scientists, qua scientists, to monitor what nonscientists (politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, pundits, corporations, enviros etc.) say about climate change and to issue pulic and/or private corrections or perceived errors? If so, who is supposed to to doing the monitoring and responding? How is it supposed to be funded? Is a purely ad hoc effort by a few sufficient, or is an organized effort that strives for “balance” in prioritizing and correcting the most misstatements – some type of climate change “truth commission” – needed?
Or is this not an obligation of scientists per se, but one shared by “the media” and “responsible advocacy groups” as well? If so, through what mechanisms do you expect that the review you desire will occur within each group, and be coordinated with others?
Third, it is puzzling to see you both decry on this thread a lack of organized, consistent review of public statements and policy proposals made about climate change, while on other threads you have (1) criticized science academies such as the Royal Society when they have attempted to provide more information as to industry funding of pundits and (2) criticized journalists such as Roberts and Monbiot who have castigated industry-funded disinformation programs. Your criticisms strike me as being at odds with your professed desires (which I share, even as I see them as being unachievable, unless requested and funded by policy makers).
Fourth, you state that “the collective willingness to overlook bad policy arguments unsupported (or even contradicted) by the current state of science while at the same time trumpeting the importance of scientific consensus is evidence of the comprehensive and pathological politicization of science in the policy debate over global warming.” This statement is puzzling not merely because it does not address the issues of what and how scientists, the media and advocacy groups are supposed to be reviewing bad policy arguments, to trumpet (or not) any scientific consensus and to avoid the politicization of science, but because it attributes too much responsibilty to these groups by completely ignoring the other obvious factors that lead to the “politicization of science” – viz., the facts that policy actions on climate change (i) will adversely affect particular and powerful interest groups, and (ii) must deal with a host of enormously complex issues to be coordinated globally, which involve many issues of efficacy, uncertainty, cost and equity.
In sum, it seems to me that while it is perfectly appropriate for you and others to point out flaws in science reporting and policy analysis, your generalized criticisms of scientists, the media and responsible advocacy groups is wrong-headed and naively attributes to these groups collective responsibilities that society has not placed on them (as opposed to our legislatures and administrative agencies) and that they in any even are not structured to bear.
If you are looking to unjam the policy-making mechanisms, I suggest that it may be more fruitful to look at how our decision-making bodies misfunction. By selectively blaming scientists, the media and responsible advocacy groups may even help to further the very politicization of science that you decry.
November 16th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Tom-
Thanks for your comments and questions. Lots to respond to here.
1. I agree with Oreskes’ conclusion that “there is no need to wait for proof, no need to demand it, and no basis to expect it?” In my work on hurricanes I have often made the point that whatever the science of hurricanes and global warming eventually says, we can proceed today on more effective policy responses based on what we already know, as imperfect as it is.
2. I do not assess the science presented by Rachel Carson because I have no expertise in that area.
3. You ask: “Is there some general obligation of scientists, qua scientists, to monitor what nonscientists (politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, pundits, corporations, enviros etc.) say about climate change and to issue pulic and/or private corrections or perceived errors?”
Response: At a minimum, scientists should not be advancing policy arguments that are flawed, dishonest, or misleading. Seems fairly obvious to me!
3. You ask: “Or is this not an obligation of scientists per se, but one shared by “the media” and “responsible advocacy groups” as well?”
Response: I agree. Certainly it also seems obvious that the media and responsible advocacy groups should not advance policy arguments that are flawed, dishonest, or misleading. I assume that you’d agree.
4. You write:
“it is puzzling to see you both decry on this thread a lack of organized, consistent review of public statements and policy proposals made about climate change, while on other threads you have (1) criticized science academies such as the Royal Society when they have attempted to provide more information as to industry funding of pundits and (2) criticized journalists such as Roberts and Monbiot who have castigated industry-funded disinformation programs.”
Lots of misrepresentation of my views in this passage.
A. I am not calling for a “review” — I am simply asking people to make good policy arguments. As I wrote, “the collective willingness to overlook bad policy arguments unsupported (or even contradicted) by the current state of science while at the same time trumpeting the importance of scientific consensus is evidence of the comprehensive and pathological politicization of science in the policy debate over global warming.”
B. I’ll stick by my criticism of the Royal Society taking on the role of an advocacy group.
C. I have never “criticized journalists such as Roberts and Monbiot who have castigated industry-funded disinformation programs.” Perhaps you are thinking of someone else.
Bottom line — scientists have a priviledged position in our society. Given the importance of science to our collective well-being, this status is well deserved. However, with such status comes responsibilities. One such responsibility is to avoid making policy arguments that are flawed, dishonest, or misleading.
As documented in this post, such arguments are in fact being advanced. I suggest that we hold the scientific community to the exact same standards that we expect, for instance, from the intelligence community on issues like WMDs and Iraq.
Thanks!
November 17th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Ultimately, you are talking about the exchange of bad information and what to do about it. Sometimes bad information is done intentionally (scammers). Often it is done through ignorance (believers). Most often it is a combination of ignorance and the misinterpretation of data squeezed through a narrowed world view (the rest of us). The latter two groups can also give good information!
Separating the good from the bad is an age old problem, but it is a problem that I believe has been slowly getting better since the dawn of civilization. Now it is rapidly improving.
You are looking at that progress right now. No longer is information controlled by a few groups. The traditional media no longer controls the news, as drudge and the bloggers have corrected them many times. No longer is science progressing through slow and inefficient journals. The Pielke’s sites are great examples of sites that spread the word and move the debates forward faster than ever. There are many others. Despite what it may seem, it is even getting harder and harder to be a crooked politician, although we still need to make a lot more progress there.
The main problem now is for any one individual to take in all the information, even in relatively narrow fields. The Internet is moving us forward, but I believe the next quantum leap will be the development of AI to access, collate and present pertinent information without spin to each individual decision maker.
I hope I live to see it!
November 17th, 2006 at 9:31 pm
Richard T,
“I think that Roger wonders is how it can be that the public wants to read some good ol’ mud-slinging on climate change, rather than a proper discussion. And why the scientific community continues to provide mud.”
I think you may be confusing supply with demand.
RBB
November 18th, 2006 at 4:50 am
Richard B:
I believe in Say’s Law: Supply follows demand.
Some say I’m old-fashioned, but I have some anecdotes.
I’ve long tried to get journalists to discuss racism in German universities. No chance. Germans do not want to read in the newspaper that they are racists.
I’ve also long tried to get a discussion on the economic impacts of climate change into the newspapers. Years of abject failure were followed by slinging mud at Nick Stern.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Roger, your response fails to address my chief problem with your complaint:
TT: “your generalized criticisms of scientists, the media and responsible advocacy groups is wrong-headed and naively attributes to these groups collective responsibilities that society has not placed on them (as opposed to our legislatures and administrative agencies) and that they in any even are not structured to bear.”
Are you seriously suggesting that these vary broad and diverse groups have some obligation to form bodies to review and criticize either science summaries or policy arguments that are flawed, dishonest, or misleading? Could this possibly work, and who would pay for it?
You state that “As documented in this post, such arguments are in fact being advanced. I suggest that we hold the scientific community to the exact same standards that we expect, for instance, from the intelligence community on issues like WMDs and Iraq.”
Roger, there is a world of difference between executive branch/mikitary intelligence agencies and the scientific community at large, the media and advocacy groups. Surely you are not suggesting some form of government control over these other groups – it is just that I have difficulty understanding just quite what it is that you ARE proposing.
TT
November 19th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
Tom-
Thanks for your comments.
You ask: “Are you seriously suggesting that these vary broad and diverse groups have some obligation to form bodies to review and criticize either science summaries or policy arguments that are flawed, dishonest, or misleading? Could this possibly work, and who would pay for it?”
The best rsponse to this is to observe that there are many bodies that exist “to review and criticize either science summaries or policy arguments.”
For instance. a few of many such organizations:
in the US:
OTA (RIP), GAO, NRC
internationally:
IPCC, IMoSEB
other countries:
UK Foresight
Enquete commissions (Europe, esp. Germany)
Many (not all) of the mischaracterizations that I have documented involve institutions such as these failing to adhere to their own standards.
Thanks.
November 19th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
Al Gore (again) joins those who mischaracterize the science of disasters and climate change when he writes:
“And with regards to some of the financial implications suggested by the Stern report, one need only look to the insurance industry for validation of the potential costs of global warming. On Wednesday, the reinsurance giant Munich Re reported, “driven by climate change, weather related disasters could cost as much as a trillion dollars in a single year by 2040″.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/19/nclim19.xml&page=4
I discussed this here:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/000989more_climate_and_dis.html
November 21st, 2006 at 1:38 pm
I looked up one on your list, misreps. about extreme weather, and first of all I had a hard time finding it. Your link is to a UN piece on chemical degradation and the Ozone problem. There are dozens of press releases coming out of the UN thing in Africa. But when I did find one on your topic, it seems the big re insurers and their NGO foundations, like MUNICH RE believe exactly as the UN states, and so this general body is just repeating in their press statements what is a common position among, for instance, those who have to pay out when these events happen. The same goes for commercial consultant reports the UN ordered.
Further, are you not playing a game of Simon Says? All of us, say in the States, or in Canada are playing with paper money that was once worth 20 times what it is now; or the prices are 20 times as high. And the population of places where people live, at least long enough that records are kept, us usally at least 10 or more times what it was say 50 years ago. I know that is true where I live and I suspect probably much the same is true for, say New Orleans. So of course, if the dam or the levee, breaks, the damages are much greater today than formerly and affect more people. Wealth has the same aspect, since we put up $500,000 or more houses, or $300 000 or more condos where once we put up frame shacks or jerry built 3 story apartments at (in this area) 1/20 the present cost of purchase. This is news?
But all this means is that we are all standing at various levels on ladders, and when Simon Says, every body take one step up, we do so, all of us. Really nothing has changed except that we have more goodies to play with and a few more people are starting up ladders. The cause of the damage is not the wealth or the population. The cause is, whaa hoppen maw?
So just what is the point of saying let us measure wealth and population? The numbers will keep rising for the forseeable future and unless someone says not one more person is allowed to live in, say Denver anymore, or else decree that the value of money will now stabilize until the great whoosis says otherwise, these trends will do what they have been doing. Even if you say I am going to discount, cut these numbers to set up a range as if there had been no change since 1940, you could do it, but what is the point.
It is the insurance companies that want to know what is it going to cost 5 years hence and should we get right out of that market. Maybe Starte Farm will do that. For us people types what we need to know is whether the physical evidence says we are likely to get extreme events with increasing frequency or what. That is climate science, not economics and not Insurer’s business calculation. There is a correlation, well of course there is and it may be a handy to measure A by counting B. But climate science rules.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
I
looked up one on your list, misreps. about extreme weather, and first
of all I had a hard time finding it. Your link is to a UN piece on
chemical degradation and the Ozone problem. There are dozens of press
releases coming out of the UN thing in Africa. But when I did find one
on your topic, it seems the big re insurers and their NGO foundations,
like MUNICH RE believe exactly as the UN states, and so this general
body is just repeating in their press statements what is a common
position among, for instance, those who have to pay out when these
events happen. The same goes for commercial consultant reports the UN
ordered.
Further, are you not playing a game of Simon Says? All of us, say in
the States, or in Canada are playing with paper money that was once
worth 20 times what it is now; or the prices are 20 times as high. And
the population of places where people live, at least long enough that
records are kept, us usally at least 10 or more times what it was say
50 years ago. I know that is true where I live and I suspect probably
much the same is true for, say New Orleans. So of course, if the dam or
the levee, breaks, the damages are much greater today than formerly and
affect more people. Wealth has the same aspect, since we put up
$500,000 or more houses, or $300 000 or more condos where once we put
up frame shacks or jerry built 3 story apartments at (in this area)
1/20 the present cost of purchase. This is news?
But all this means is that we are all standing at various levels on
ladders, and when Simon Says, every body take one step up, we do so,
all of us. Really nothing has changed except that we have more goodies
to play with and a few more people are starting up ladders. The cause
of the damage is not the wealth or the population. The cause is, whaa
hoppen maw?
So just what is the point of saying let us measure wealth and
population? The numbers will keep rising for the forseeable future and
unless someone says not one more person is allowed to live in, say
Denver anymore, or else decree that the value of money will now
stabilize until the great whoosis says otherwise, these trends will do
what they have been doing. Even if you say I am going to discount, cut
these numbers to set up a range as if there had been no change since
1940, you could do it, but what is the point.
It is the insurance companies that want to know what is it going to
cost 5 years hence and should we get right out of that market. Maybe
Starte Farm will do that. For us people types what we need to know is
whether the physical evidence says we are likely to get extreme events
with increasing frequency or what. That is climate science, not
economics and not Insurer’s business calculation. There is a
correlation, well of course there is and it may be a handy to measure A
by counting B. But climate science rules.
March 25th, 2007 at 9:03 am
A pseudo-trackback:
“R.P. Jr. and who controls the agenda
….The problem with these bad arguments is similar to other lazy arguments like the ol’ slippery slope claim: the argument is an easy one to come up with in some form or another, but because every once in a great while it actually is valid, it’s impossible to dismiss categorically….”
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/03/rp-jr-and-who-controls-agenda.html