ednesday, September 24, 2008
A market solution?
When The Guardian resident eco-freak(REF) takes time out – albeit not a lot – to have a swipe at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), then something must be going on that is worth looking at.
And indeed there is. Today, the Institute published a pamphlet under the title, "Climate Change Policy: Challenging the Activists", which concludes that "climate policy has become subject to a quasi-religious mindset, driven by the desire to maintain consensus and defend its dogma, rather than seeking the best policy for the future."
You can see, therefore, why the REF takes such umbrage, complaining that most of the authors – six in all – "must be over 70". Remarkable, even by IEA standards, for its dullness and scientific illiteracy, storms the REF, it wonders if the authors should “rethink their outrage at society being asked to fork out about $25bn a year to tackle climate change, when it's costing governments several trillion dollars to tackle the dodgy bankers.”
It is interesting that the man should cite the figures in dollars and doubly interesting that he – like so many of the warmists, from Stern onwards, seek publicly to downplay the costs of dealing with their obsession.
Yet, the whole essence of green taxes, carbon trading and the rest, is to price fossil fuels out of the market by making them so expensive that "green" substitutes become more attractive. A "mere" $25bn a year, therefore – or whatever the obsession is actually costing us – is only a down payment. Costs will increase because they are designed so to do.
Anyhow, the thesis expressed by the "IEA six", admirably expressed in the press release - which will save idle journalists having to read the pamplet – is that the policy focus "should shift to market-based adaptation, not hairshirts and witch hunts."
Government intervention, say the authors, is likely to harm our economy and unlikely to save the planet. Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol has already caused economic damage and a government-led approach "would impoverish us economically, damage individual freedom" and, paradoxically hamper our ability to deal with climate change.
Thus, in classic IEA style, the response should be left to the markets, which can be left to exploit future technological advances and respond to the situation as it develops. As a long-stop, however, the authors concede that there is a role for "modified" carbon taxes which would be used for an insurance-based "climate catastrophe fund" to pay for remedial geo-engineering projects if the need arose.
One must admire the constancy of the IEA and its faith in markets. However,recent experience would suggest that the markets' main concern is to get into bed with government and devise ever more ingenious mechanisms for ripping-off the consumer/taxpayers and enrich themselves on the proceeds.
On this, unfortunately, the IEA has little to say, which is a pity. When so much money is up for grabs from rigging the markets, few are going to be interested in the IEA's idea of a truly free market response.
COMMENT THREAD
The invisible takeover
On matters of trade, and especially WTO affairs, Ronald Stewart-Brown is one of the commentators worth reading. In this month’s edition of The European Journal (no link), he writes about the failed Doha round. What stands out from his piece is this section:
… it needs to be emphasised, the UK no longer has any meaningful existence in the world of international trade negotiations as it has ceded Brussels controls of most aspects of its trade relations with third countries apart from currency and trade promotion. While she retains nominal WTO membership, it is now in reality little more than a region of the EU in trade policy terms, with the periodic right to nominate one of its nationals as EU trade commissioner.Stewart-Brown thus highlights something very few people understand or appreciate. Not only has much of our government moved to Brussels, so has much of the expertise in policy-making and development. The best and brightest no longer work for Whitehall. In trade as in other areas, the British government does not "do" policy – it merely reacts to and then implements policy developed in Brussels.
In the early days of UK membership, when EEC decision-making on trade policy was primarily inter-governmental, the Department of Trade and Industry was a leading and respected player in EEC trade policy matters. But as EU trade policy decision-making became more supranational so DTI trade policy expertise gravitated to the commission in Brussels. The dropping of the word trade from the department’s title when it was renamed last year as BERR (the department of business, enterprise and regulatory reform) says it all.
The same goes for academia. Traditionally, the intellectual reservoir of the nation, contributing much to the development of policy in many areas, the money no longer comes from Whitehall but from Brussels. If a department is to attract research funding – the lifeblood of most universities – it is absolutely pointless offering national policy solutions. Unless the work has a "European dimension" – often tied in with other European "partners" – it will remain unrewarded.
Thus has an important facet of public administration been hollowed out. But, because it was never highly visible, its loss is hardly noticed – except in its insidious consequences. EU policy dominates because we have lost much of the capability of making our own.
So continues the invisible takeover, one which is all the more dangerous for being unseen.
COMMENT THREAD
Heads in the sand?
Something I missed yesterday was an article in The Guardian retailing the latest warmist orthodoxy from the UK's Met Office. According to the Met Office, climate sceptics such as Nigel Lawson who argue that global warming has stopped have their "heads in the sand".
The "evidence" for this highly scientific observation is a graph showing temperature trends from 1975, referenced Brohan et al. Tracking this back, one finds this is the Climate Research Unit dataset, developed in association with the Hadley centre, relying entirely on surface measurements.
The unreliability of such measurements has been well rehearsed, with significant evidence that attests that this dataset is the odd man out - compared with satellite readings.
A huge amount of work has been undertaken by Anthony Watts, recorded on his website, demonstrating the fragility of surface measurements and hislatest post highlights the amount of manipulation to which even "pristine data" is subject.
Bearing in mind that the total shift recorded by Brohan et al is in the order of half a degree Celsius, it is seriously arguable that the inherent errors in the system are considerably greater than the changes being measured, notwithstanding that the entire methodology for calculating a single global temperature is highly suspect.
To build such a huge industry on the back of such fragile data is, to say the very least, tendentious. Then to accuse those who have the temerity to question the wisdom of so doing as having their "heads in the sand" smacks of desperation – or worse. Still, I suppose it is better than having your heads up your backsides.
COMMENT THREAD
The devil's techniques
"The patron saint of charlatans is again spreading dangerous misinformation," writes George Monbiot in The Guardian in a characteristically vitriolic attack – this one directed at Christopher Booker.
The article is worth analysing because it is a superb illustration of the techniques used by polemicists to demonstrate their version of the truth – not by evaluating the evidence, but by attacking those who have. For students of the media – and the truth – this should be the object of intensive study and treasured as a valuable example of the craft.
The piece deals with two issue, the dangers of white asbestos (chrysotile) and the global warming debate, clearly seeking to prove that the former is a killer and the latter exists and is a major problem. But the evidence for either postulate is not addressed. Instead, the technique is to attack Christopher Booker in order to demonstrate that he is wrong on both counts. And, because Booker is wrong, Monbiot is right – QED.
To achieve this task, the piece opens with the strap line, repeated in the body text that, "The Sunday Telegraph columnist Christopher Booker has published 38 articles about asbestos - and every one is wrong".
Addressing this highly contentious issue of whether white asbestos – compared with brown and blue – is dangerous, Monbiot leaps in to the attack, citing as an example of Booker's "errors" that he contends that "not a single case" of mesothelioma - the cancer caused by exposure to asbestos - "has ever been scientifically linked with asbestos cement" (made with white asbestos).
Monbiot then refers to "a paper commissioned by the UK's Health and Safety Executive," which, Booker says, "concluded that the risk from white asbestos is 'virtually zero'". Booker, writes Monbiot, tells me he has read this paper: "Oh yes?" counters Monbiot: "The term he quotes – 'virtually zero' - does not appear in it."
The paper to which Monbiot refers is by John Hodgson and Andrew Darnton, published in 2000 – and he is right. Those exact words do not appear.
What the authors do write, in respect of the use of asbestos cement, is that the risk is so low as to be "probably insignificant". The paper then assesses the risk of acquiring lung cancer from "cumulative exposure", suggesting that "the case for a threshold - i.e., zero, or at least very low risk – is arguable."
Booker, therefore, has paraphrased the quotes, conveying their general import, his mistake being to put own words in quotes. But is he wrong? Not at all. The sense of what Hodgson and Darton are writing is accurately conveyed.
Monbiot nevertheless seeks to reinforce the impression of error – as in wrongness – by his own selective quoting of a series of figures purporting to demonstrate a risk, failing entirely to identify the context of the paper. Hodgson and Darton were not original researchers but statisticians, analysing historic work on the subject, much of it flawed.
Crucially, many studies on which the authors relied did not distinguish between cases where their sole exposure had been to white asbestos and those who had been exposed to all types, either separately or as mixtures. For direct evidence, we need to refer to different papers. One such, byIlgren and Chatfield, published in 1998, notes that:
There has probably never been an attributable, clinically and pathologically proven case of mesothelioma in any manufacturing industry, e.g. cement, friction products, or textiles, amongst the many tens of thousands of workers where chrysotile alone has been used.Another, by Yarborough, also in 2007, notes:
Excess risk of pleural mesothelioma from past exposures to asbestos, as evidenced by a trend of high incidence rates during the last half century, appears to be the result of nonchrysotile asbestiform fibers. Although scientific efforts and legal arguments continue, the risk of pleural mesothelioma in human populations is probably negligible for exposures to airborne chrysotile asbestos that is not known to be contaminated by amphibole.These are readily accessible papers, available to Monbiot as easily as they are to us. But, when Monbiot interviewed Booker on Monday, he was completely unwilling to discuss the science. And nor would he accept from Booker that his definitive statement on asbestos was in our book, Scared to Death where Hodgson and Darton are quoted accurately and in context. Monbiot needs Booker to be wrong, so he relies on one quote, taken from one column, published in January 2002. And, on that basis, all 38 of his columns are wrong – every word, every sentence and every argument.
Neither is Monbiot averse to playing his own games. To give his piece the aura of authenticity, he republishes it on his own blog with references. But in one egregious case his reference contains errors in the names, citing a paper which he writes, includes the authors Albin, Jacobson, Attawell, Johannson, and Wellinder. The correct names are: Albin, Jakobsson, Attewell, Johansson and Welinder.
The original errors are in the Hodgson and Darton paper, from which Monbiot has obviously cribbed the reference, making you wonder whether he has actually read the paper which he cites.
However, this and the selective quoting technique are only the first in the Monbiot armoury. The next technique is "guilt by association", where Booker is linked with an interesting and colourful character by the name of John Bridle. This man, having set up an organisation called Asbestos Watchdog, to expose the scams by asbestos removal contractors and lawyers milking the concern over asbestos, has seriously got up the nose of the asbestos lobby and has attracted enemies like day-old cat food attracts flies.
"Colourful" is a good description of Bridle, a technical salesman rather than scientist by background, he sometimes cuts corners and can be rather lyrical about his exploits and associations, giving his many enemies opportunities to attack him – which they seize and exploit to the full.
But that does not mean that Bridle is wrong about asbestos. After all, Hitler in his time was a strong opponent of smoking and of reckless speeding in cars. He placed a speed limit on SS officials driving on business. Was Hitler wrong about both these issues?
With Bridle, though, Monbiot does not attempt to find out what the man says – whether he is right or wrong. He simply exploits the fruits of the many attacks against him and then, having delivered a prolonged character assassination, relies on the link between Bridle and Booker to reinforce the postulation that Booker is wrong.
Thus does Monbiot deliver the "interim" punchline, telling his readers: "We are not talking about trivia here. This is a matter of life and death. How many people might have been exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos dust as a result of reading and believing Mr Booker's columns?"
Now, having set Booker up, he moves on to the real agenda – global warming. Booker attacks Michael Mann, he of "hockey stick" fame. However, Mann, according to Monbiot, is absolutely right. So, how did Booker trip up so badly? "By using the claims of unqualified bloggers to refute peer-reviewed studies," writes Monbiot in triumph.
What Monbiot fails to mention in his dismissive reference to "unqualified bloggers" is that Mann was debunked by two computer experts, Steve McIntrye and Ross McKitrick. Now McIntyre runs an expert blog - where Mann's latest paper has been comprehensively demolished - this gives Monbiot his entré.
But what Monbiot fails to say – another of those starling omissions – is that when the "hockey stick" became a matter of massive controversy, a US Congressional Committee asked Edward Wegman, arguably the most respected statistician in America, to conduct an investigation into McIntyre's analysis. Wegman and his expert team wholly vindicated McIntyre's findings.
More follows from Monbiot though, a polemic on ice cover in the Arctic which misses the point (this is dealt with in comments to Monbiot's piece), and thus the great work lurches to a conclusion, with the grand declaration:
But for the Wikipedia Professor of Gibberish, this patron saint of charlatans, even the seasons are negotiable. Booker remains right, whatever the evidence says. It is hard to think of any journalist - Melanie Phillips included - who has spread more misinformation. The world becomes even harder to navigate. You cannot trust the people who tell you whom to trust.The very first comment on his online piece shreds this pretension. The writer suggests that the last sentence is "a bit of a hostage to fortune". "You cannot trust the people who tell you whom to trust," he quotes, then noting: "You are telling me not to trust Booker. Surely you are falling into your own trap?"
The irony of this would have escaped the great Moonbat. This is precisely the game he is playing. Booker is wrong, you cannot trust him. Trust me instead. Never mind the facts, never mind the evidence. This is a belief system here, one in which the opposition must be denigrated as heretics, or even equated with Holocaust deniers – another Monbiot gem.
This is not rational argument. It may be clever and Monbiot may have his devoted band of acolytes. But he uses the devil's techniques.
COMMENT THREAD
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
News from the big bad world
So, they ask, where is she? Well, no, I don't suppose they do ask but, anyway, I am around, just busy with other matters, such as attending a conference on "soft Jihad" and how to fight it. There will be a long report or two on that and news of a new publication by Daniel Hannan and Douglas Carswell, launched tomorrow, entitled "The Plan". Here are some of their proposals:
Can't say I agree with all of it but the ideas are worth discussing and, after all, is that not what we are all complaining about: lack of policy. There is one great advantage to this plan - it cannot be achieved without an exit from the European Union. So if the Conservative Party adopts it ... well, I might vote for them in 2010.
Scrapping all MPs' expenses except those relating to running an office and travel from the constituency
Selecting candidates through open primaries
Local and national referendums
"People's Bills", to be placed before Parliament if they attract a certain number of signatures
Placing the police under locally elected Sheriffs, who would also set local sentencing guidelines
Appointing heads of quangos, senior judges and ambassadors through open parliamentary hearings rather than prime ministerial patronage
Devolving to English counties and cities all the powers which were devolved to Edinburgh under the 1998 Scotland Act
Placing Social security, too, under local authorities
Making councils self-financing by scrapping VAT and replacing it with a Local Sales Tax
Allowing people to pay their contributions into personal healthcare accounts, with a mandatory insurance component
Letting parents opt out of their Local Education Authority, carrying to any school the financial entitlement that would have been spent on their child
Replacing EU membership with a Swiss-style bilateral free trade accord
Requiring all foreign treaties to be re-ratified annually by Parliament
Scrapping the Human Rights Act and guaranteeing parliamentary legislation against judicial activism
A "Great Repeal Bill" to annul unnecessary and burdensome laws
In the meantime I intend to attend the launch tomorrow and shall blog about that. Tim Montgomerie will probably beat me to the finishing line. He always does.
Let me link to another story, one we have been following on this blog. It is most definitely from the big bad world - nothing to do with the EU or our own little party squabbles but much to do with the media, truth and freedom (in whatever order you would like to place those).
Richard Landes reports that France 2 has agreed to an independent enquiry on the Al-Dura affair. He links to a number of articles and comments. Why, one wonders, is France 2 doing this? It can't be bad conscience, as journalists rarely know the meaning of that. Financial problems? Well, we shall see how it develops and whether those missing film minutes will ever be recovered.
Posts
