Climate change - a new religion?

There is a comments writer at the Newcastle Herald who sees proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) as being part of a "false religion" or "cult". My personal feelings have been the opposite - that those who deny AGW, the sceptics or the "denialists", are part of a "false religion". Given that a recent survey of the Hunter Valley shows that one-third of people are to be considered "climate sceptics", that's obviously a very large "cult".

Evangelical Christians (of which I am one) are also ever mindful of new religious movements that challenge the claims of Christ. The rise of Neopaganism and the simultaneous rise of environmentalism and Green politics has led to a sort of "guilt by association", whereby evangelicals see "Greenies" or "treehuggers" as being ultimately satanic in origin.

This is not to say that sceptics are Christian and AGW proponents are not (I am both an AGW proponent AND a Christian) but the way these two groups have described each other in negative religious terms is problematic yet also understandable.

And, yes, I have described sceptics in such terms as well. Moreover I think that it is a good way of describing them.

Of course there is nothing religious per se about Climatology and the whole Global Warming debate. The use of the word to describe either side of the debate is not meant to literally label such a belief "religious" (though there is a point at which actual religion sometimes ends up being discussed, ie many Christians oppose AGW on religious grounds). What it is meant to convey, along with word "cult" would be the following:

1. A commitment to the truth of their belief.
2. The desire to change the world based upon the natural outworking of the belief.
3. A belief that is not rooted in reality.

So from the point-of-view of scepticism, AGW proponents 1) believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming, 2) want to reduce carbon emissions on an international scale to prevent global warming, and 3) are doing so either because they are stupid (AGW is false), misled (belief that the IPCC and others are right when they're not) or because they have ulterior motives (money, prestige, conspiracy theories).

But now take the opposite viewpoint. From the point of view of AGW proponents, sceptics 1) do not believe that current warming has anything to do with human activity, 2) do not want to reduce carbon emissions because it is unnecessary, and 3) are doing so either because they are stupid (AGW is true), misled (by media, think tanks owned by sceptics) or because they have ulterior motives (funded by oil and mining companies).

Daniel Okrent, former public editor of the New York Times, created the following adage:

The pursuit of balance can create imbalance because sometimes something is true.

According to Wikipedia, this adage refers "to the phenomenon of the press providing legitimacy to fringe or minority viewpoints in an effort to appear even-handed."

What we have in this debate are two mutually exclusive polar opposites: Those who believe in AGW and those who don't. Now the fact is that one of these groups MUST be wrong -  there is actually no room for a third alternative viewpoint. Either the world is heating up because of human activity or it is not.

If a person believes in something that they hold to be truth, and if that truth demands action, then they will act accordingly. Whether or not their position is true in an objective sense doesn't enter into the equation, which means that this basic behaviour is quite normal and quite human. For those who believe, they will do x. For those who do not believe, they will do y.

This means that each group will naturally see each other with incredulity. "How can these jokers believe in / not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming!? They are so committed to their position! They are like a false religion, a cult!". That is a natural position to take.

In the end, it comes down to information analysis and self assessment. Can we trust those experts who form the scientific basis of our belief at this point? Have we been guilty of believing stupid stuff in the past? How much knowledge of the subject do we need before we must let the "experts" take over and speak for us?

And that is why I am an AGW proponent and not a sceptic. I believe that a consensus of climatologists on this subject is all the evidence I need, regardless of where these people get their funding or which country they're from. I think that it is likely that the vast majority of climatologists have approached this subject with diligence and have come to their conclusions based on evidence, and I find it much less likely that these Climatologists have conspired and colluded over time to falsify the data for their own twisted ends. Moreover I also believe that, just as Big Tobacco hired doctors and scientists to confuse the public about the health effects of smoking in order to promote their own interests, so too do I believe that oil companies and mining companies are hiring scientists to confuse the public in order to promote their own interests (ie profit).

Moreover, I also note that there has never been any mass collusion of scientists to promote lies in history, whereas there have been multiple instances throughout history of quashing scientific knowledge by groups that are threatened by it - Big Tobacco attacking those scientists who discovered the link between smoking and cancer; the church attacking Galileo for his scientific progress. Science has obviously been corrupted by political operatives (eg Nazi Germany) but, left to itself, it has yet to deliberately use its power to lie and mislead the public. I see no evidence of political influence upon the world's Climatologists.

And those are my reasons for being a proponent of AGW, and the reason why many sceptics would see me as part of the "climate change religion", and the reason why I see them as being deceived by a "religion of scientific denialism".

There can be no "balance" here, because something IS true.

Blowing my own trumpet

At some point in the future I aim to begin formal study of economics. I think I'm good at it. Moreover I think that I'm damn good at it.

Over the years I have occasionally interacted with "real economists", either through the post or in person. I have proposed some of my ideas, only to be dismissed. This obviously means that a) I am a crank, or b) They don't know how brilliant I am. Believe me, I have often pondered the fact that I am a crank.

It wasn't until I began being taken seriously at the Angry Bear blog that I got the "kudos" I think I needed. I made mistakes too, which is common amongst informed amateurs like myself. The problem, though, is that I am self taught and outside the mainstream.

So why bother?

The problem concerns my own self understanding. I see myself as a logical thinker, so I have to rely upon things like facts to inform my own view of myself. Once I tried to be a comedian at a friend's wedding and the experience taught me that I was not going to become a good comedian. That's fine.

Back in 1996 I began developing a zero unemployment idea. I have revised it and retitled it and added to it and subtracted from it, and it is viewable here. My basic idea was that the labour market functions as a market, and that raising the price of labour through legislative means (the minimum wage) will only result in unused labour and thus unemployment. Having a system whereby unemployment is eliminated and workers get a decent income requires a form of wage subsidy, whereby the government "tops up" the wages of workers who are hired in an economic environment in which business can pay as much as it wants to for labour costs. I thought that it was a brilliant idea - it was pro-free market in the sense that employers could pay employees as much or as little as they wanted, while at the same time being socialist in the way that the wage subsidy ensured that no worker would be forced into wage slavery. Of course the important thing to realise here is that the result would inevitably be higher taxes to pay for such a redistribution.

So I took this proposal to an economist at a nearby university. I spent a hour trying to make him understand but he was coming from a completely opposite perspective - he argued that legislating higher wages will result in better conditions and lower unemployment. The fact that he worked for a think tank committed to lowering unemployment was interesting too. After being poo-pooed by him you'd think that I had sense enough to see that I was a crank, but no. I was convinced by my own research and then sent off my work to a bunch of famous Australian economists. Only one replied. In that letter he basically told me that my idea seemed to be influenced by Milton Friedman's "Negative Income Tax". While there was no "my goodness you are brilliant" or "please give up insulting me and the study of economics" lines in the letter, it was nevertheless encouraging. Think about it - I had come up with an idea, all by myself, that the famous Milton Friedman had come up with!

This was obviously self-motivating. Someone could probably say "this guy has copied a bit of Milton Friedman's work", but the reason why it was self motivating was that I had never read anything by Friedman. I knew that while I had come up with the idea by myself, that there was always a possibility that someone had come up with it before me. That this famous Australian economist had said so confirmed it to me.

Early on this year I was shopping and discovered a book titled "Little Book of Big Ideas - Economics". It was a summary of the ideas of famous economists and those who had influenced economics. What was interesting was that it included the input of such ancient luminaries as Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and even the 14th century Muslim philosopher Ibn Khaldun. So I bought it.

And then I discovered the section on Edmund Phelps. The 2006 Economics Nobel Prize winner guy. Here is the relevant section that I will quote:

In Phelp's 1997 book "Rewarding Work", he proposes that government pay firms wage subsidies to promote employment and higher wages for workers. The idea is that some workers can only earn a low wage, if based solely on productivity, so the firm can only pay them a wage that is so high. Many of these workers may prefer not to work for such a low wage under these circumstances, and choose to receive government benefits. If government steps in and subsidises a higher wage, this can draw such workers into the labour market and out of the dole. Thus employment can increase and dependence on government handouts fall, with workers earning a wage that provides a higher standard of living even while firms only pay what makes economic sense to them. Phelps calculates the cost of such a plan and concludes that it is affordable, given the benefit of higher income and employment.

I was gobsmacked. Literally. So literally that a gob flew down and smacked me.

This was, of course, what I needed to continue. My idea, my "Zero Unemployment Economic System" that I had been developing since 1996, had been formulated independently by an important economist (and eventual Nobel prize winner) at around the same time, and published.

Nevertheless someone might argue that I had merely "stolen" Phelps' ideas somehow. I suppose that is a possibility - but for myself I know that my idea was my own, which is why it motivates me. If I can come up with an economic system similar to that of a Nobel Laureate in economics, and do so completely independently of him and independent of any formal economic training, then, logically, I must have some level of brilliance.

What interests me, of course, is that none of the economists I interacted with were able to see that my proposal was similar to that of Edward Phelps proposal in "Rewarding Work". What also interests me is that I was part of a small band of professional and amateur economists who foresaw the economic disaster that we are currently in. But, then again, I do see myself as a bit of a Cassandra - fated to know "the future" but not have the ability to convince anyone of it.

About 5-6 years ago I formulated another idea - whereby a government can eliminate taxation altogether, create its funds by fiat and keep the resulting inflation controlled by adjusting the money supply. I dismissed it as too strange even for myself, but I kept coming back to it. Once I began to understand how the reserve requirement affects the money supply, I realised that this idea might work. I call it my Zero Tax Economic System. I still think it will work, and I also unaware of anyone else who has proposed it. Why continue to think it might work? Apart from being convinced by my own argument, I do have the Edward Phelps link - if I can independently come up with something that an Economics Nobel Laureate can come up with, then maybe I am worth listening to.

And that's why I have decided to blow my own trumpet.

Current Real Interest Rates

* Source: The Economist (2009-12-10)
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15066159
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15073949
** 3 month bonds
*** Source: The Economist (2009-11-05)
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14816582
http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14816566
† Indicates what effect the change in real interest rates has had on the economy. Any movement ≤ ±0.1% is considered "stable"
†† Newly added to list

Real Interest Rates measure saving vs spending conditions. The higher the rate, the more saving is encouraged; the lower the rate, the more spending is encouraged. Changes in real interest rates over time can indicate changes in economic conditions.

---

The Limits of Climate Scepticism

Occasionally The Economist gets it right:

I woke up the other morning to find that I would have to confront yet another headache-inducing attempt to phase-shift my perception of reality, and that this would require wading into historical accounts of the collection and homogenisation of temperature data. On December 8th, a climate-change sceptic named Willis Eschenbach posted what he called the "smoking gun" of climate change data manipulation: a series of graphs of the uandjusted historical record of the temperature-monitoring site at the airport in Darwin, Australia, plotted against the same data as adjusted for various error factors ("homogenised") by the Global Historical Climate Network, or GHCN. Mr Eschenbach claimed the adjustment was so arbitrary, it had to be evidence of intentional manipulation.

(and then, after a lengthy piece exploring the evidence and dismissing Eschenbach's claims)

So, after hours of research, I can dismiss Mr Eschenbach. But what am I supposed to do the next time I wake up and someone whose name I don't know has produced another plausible-seeming account of bias in the climate-change science? Am I supposed to invest another couple of hours in it? Do I have to waste the time of the readers of this blog with yet another long post on the subject? Why? Why do these people keep bugging us like this? Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong? At what point am I allowed to simply say, look, I've seen these kind of claims before, they always turns out to be wrong, and it's not worth my time to look into it?

Well, here's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.

I couldn't have written it better myself. It's a pity that The Economist doesn't have the same sort of attitude towards Peak Oil.

OSO's Debt Watch

GDP = $14.2663 Trillion (2009 Q3 second estimate)
Public Debt = $7.71003731876699 Trillion (2009-12-02)
Debt/GDP ratio = 54.04%
Population = 308,253,999 (Resident Population + Armed Forces Overseas, 2009-11-01)
Public Debt / person = $25,011.96
Tax Receipts = $2.063901 Trillion (Year-to-date, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2009-12-10)
Debt/Receipt ratio* = 373.57%

Notes:

Tax Receipts updated for December 2009

In October 2008, the Debt/GDP ratio was 43.43%
In October 2008, Public Debt / person was $20,264.04
In October 2008, the Debt/Receipt* ratio was 231.82%

* The Debt/Receipt ratio measures year-to-date government revenue as a percentage of current public debt. A good way to compare it would be to compare your current income to what you owe on your mortgage.

---

More on Evangelicals and Global Warming

A comment I made here:

I suppose my point is about urgency and common sense. If a man is tied to rail tracks and a train is approaching, do you a) untie him or b) preach the gospel to him? Obviously you would do the first, then hopefully the second.

Global Warming has come about because of sin. Mankind has not looked after the earth that God left him to be steward over. Ultimately the answer to this sin is the preaching of the gospel, but there does need to be some "untying from the railway tracks" as well.

Sadly, many evangelical Christians have been convinced of the sceptic argument - a far greater proportion than the rest of society (probably due to their links with conservative politics). They have essentially "backed the wrong horse" to use a racing metaphor. They are tightening the ropes of the man on the railway tracks while preaching the gospel to him. Not a good situation to be in.

When environmental disaster strikes, and millions do die, will unbelievers see evangelical Christians as rescuers from the disaster or enablers of the disaster?

Wisdom - The Brian Jonestown Massacre

My sixth favourite song.

Current Real Interest Rates

---

OSO's Debt Watch

GDP = $14.2663 Trillion (2009 Q3 second estimate)
Public Debt = $7.70691351169373 Trillion (2009-12-02)
Debt/GDP ratio = 54.02%
Population = 308,253,999 (Resident Population + Armed Forces Overseas, 2009-11-01)
Public Debt / person = $25,001.83
Tax Receipts = $2.075095 Trillion (Year-to-date, Monthly Treasury Statement, 2009-11-12)
Debt/Receipt ratio* = 371.40%

Notes:

Population figures updated for November 2009

In October 2008, the Debt/GDP ratio was 43.43%
In October 2008, Public Debt / person was $20,264.04
In October 2008, the Debt/Receipt* ratio was 231.82%

* The Debt/Receipt ratio measures year-to-date government revenue as a percentage of current public debt. A good way to compare it would be to compare your current income to what you owe on your mortgage.

EDIT: Made some changes to Monthly treasury Statement. 2009-12-05 04-30-00 Z

---

A Savings Glut? More like a global imbalance.

(This is in response to an article in The Guardian).

 In order to argue that a "savings glut" exists, we must assume that a considerable amount of people all over the world have been busy not spending and not borrowing. This finds its expression in the current account status of particular economies - China, Japan and other nations have huge current account surpluses as the people in those nations save and produce rather than borrow and consume.

But economics is always a matter of balance. The international "savings glut" must be balanced by a commensurate "borrowing glut" elsewhere, where people and businesses are borrowing and consuming rather than saving and producing. Again this can be found in the current account - nations with current account deficits are nations who are borrowing and consuming too much.

To argue that the world is suffering from a "savings glut" is to place the blame on one part of the world over another. America has been part of a "borrowing glut" and needs to take responsibility for its part in the world economic crisis.

The reality is that the entire world has been suffering from an economic imbalance. You can't call it either a "savings glut" or a "borrowing glut". China and Japan saved too much, America and Britain borrowed to much, China and Japan produced too much, America and Britain consumed too much.

The ideal situation is for economies to balance themselves out and aim for a equal amount of borrowing and saving, and an equal amount of producing and consuming. This finds expression in a balanced current account, whereby the current account is neither in deficit or surplus over the long term.

Of course there is the idea that some nations should go through a savings phase or a borrowing phase. The problem is that with national currencies, such necessary phases lead to currency speculations and eventual imbalances. Just as it was right for the market to invest heavily in tech stocks back in the mid 1990s, so was it wrong for the market to over-invest in such stocks by the late 1990s. The same goes for currencies.

It is here that the advantage of a shared currency zone comes about. The European Union's current account has been very low since the introduction of the Eurozone in 1999. The Eurozone's current account was last recorded at -0.9% of GDP, which is very low compared to the -6% run by the US over the years and the +6% run by China over the same period. Yet within the Eurozone we see a number of nations running very different current accounts, with Germany and the Netherlands running large current account surpluses and Spain and Greece running large deficits. Yet because these countries are part of one currency zone, such differences do not result in currency speculation.

For nations with their own sovereign currency, the best solution would be for politicians and central bankers to realign their current accounts through fiscal and monetary means. This means that the US needs to reign in its current account deficit. It also means that Japan and China need to reduce their current account surpluses.

Remember - in economics, balance is the key. To argue that a current account deficit is bad and that a current account surplus is good is a return to bad old days of mercantilism. The fact is that both are bad, and that the closer the current account is to zero, the better the economy will be.

In the current situation, nations with large current account surpluses (such as Japan, China, Sweden, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand) need to revalue their currencies (sell off US dollars and buy their own currencies), lower their interest rates and set up fiscal stimuli. By doing this, these producer nations will begin to consume more and save less. At the same time, nations with large current account deficits (USA, Britain, Australia) should encourage savings by increasing interest rates. While this will depress domestic demand in these countries, economic growth will be focused more on the external demand driven by the stimuli enacted in the first group of countries.

As it stands now, unfortunately, the imbalances remain. The US, Britain and Australia have enacted stimuli while nations with large current account surpluses have protected their industrial base by keeping their currencies low. It's simply more of the same and does nothing at all to solve the problem except in the short term.

---