Richard Tol Corrects

This is fairly big news.  Richard Tol, him of the freaky hair, and, to his credit, one of the first wave of economists to study the economics of climate change, has long argued that--until  global warming pushed the planet's average temperature above the two degree C threshold proscribed by the IPCC as an acceptable upside limit--AGW's economic effects would be, when you combined all the local pluses and minuses, beneficial to the planet as as whole.  After some fierce criticism from Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Mr. Tol has admitted he was wrong: the economics of global warming start to suck before we reach the U.N.'s  two degree maximum:

And here's the (Figure 2) Tol speaks of:

Note how, as Richard himself says, the global economy suffers under all estimates before we reach the IPCC's 2 degree limit, and in one case actually seems to take a shit and die

Good on Richard for issuing the correction.  That's how science is supposed to work.

Update: First "this" above now goes through to full text of Tol's correction.

TolGate

Richard Tol, the climate change denier's favorite economist (and a guy with hair that, lets face it, is world-class in its sheer freakiness), gets smacked down for both his role in the Irish economic collapse and some dubious science:

No less disturbing than the drift into boosterism in the ESRI’s forecasts are the political activities of Richard Tol in the climate field, activities that blur uncomfortably and insidiously into his research work.

Tol has engaged in a long-term collaboration with Bjørn Lomborg, himself the subject of a detailed critique by Howard Friel titled ‘The Lomborg Deception’ and categorised by its publisher, Yale University Press, under the subject-heading of “Fraud in Science”.

Lomborg operates the Copenhagen Consensus Center (CCC) which, in spite of its title, has served solely as a vehicle for the political views of its leader. The Copenhagen Consensus projects involve Lomborg hand-picking researchers, with Tol a favourite, to engage in rigged research projects which Lomborg further distorts beyond the point of fraud to oppose any reduction in fossil fuel use.

For the 2008 project, Tol co-wrote a paper along with Gary Yohe of Wesleyan University and two researchers from the Electric Power Research Institute, a US trade association. The two climate change proposals were ranked against numerous development and human welfare issues and came in 29th and 30th out of 30.

Long-term Lomborg critic Kåre Fog took Tol, whose FUND computer-model was the basis for the simulation, to task about the study. Tol admitted that the study used a discount rate that fell gradually from 5% whereas all the competing proposals used a 3% rate. Tol excused himself by saying that re-writing the model to use the 3% discount rate was too difficult and that the other proposals should have used his rate, even though the project specifications dictated 3% and he has at other times successfully employed FUND with other rates. This inherent bias caused the bottom ranking.

Fog’s criticisms did not end there. Tol claims his research showed a net benefit from global warming until mid-century, after which the effects turn sharply negative. For this purpose, welfare effects were calculated in local economy terms, with deaths for example being costed at a certain multiple of local per-capita GDP. Thus a single European saved from winter influenza, probable – in actuarial terms – to be elderly and infirm, outweighed not one but many Africans dying – likely in the prime of life – due to global warming.

Subsequently, Lomborg and Yohe had a spectacular falling out. In a bruising exchange in the pages of the Guardian, Yohe accused Lomborg of “misrepresenting our findings thanks to a highly selective memory”. The exchange was temporarily concluded by a joint article where Lomborg and Yohe agreed that the reason CCC climate proposals “failed the cost-benefit test … could be traced to faulty design”. Given that the designs were Lomborg’s own, this was a humiliating admission.

He also pals around with Ian Plimer, a proponent of Manuel's "Iron Sun" theory.

Richard Tol On Aircraft Emissions

The scientist with the freakiest hair on Earth addresses CO2 emissions from air-craft. Specifically, he is examining deficiencies in the European Union's plan for seeing these emissions reduced, but some of his recommendations would probably apply more generally:

The emission allowance equals the number of passenger-kilometres times an emission per passenger-kilometre standard. That standard could be the lowest emissions per passenger-kilometre of all commercial airlines. This would reward airlines with low emissions and punish those with high emissions. Although overall demand for flying is not sensitive to price, the choice of carrier is. Passengers would flock to the climate-friendly airlines and emissions would fall. Airlines that invest in energy-efficient aircraft would be financially rewarded and gain an advantage over their competitors. This would stimulate further emission reductions.

Go get 'em Richard, and never forget:

Almost cut my hair
It happened just the other day
It's gettin kinda long
I coulda said it wasn't in my way
But I didn't and I wonder why
I feel like letting my freak flag fly
Cause I feel like I owe it to someone

Richard Tol Changes Tune, Talks Carbon Tax

Economist Richard Tol is often quoted with approval in climate skeptic circles, and indeed he has employed some rather questionable methods to argue that, among other things, Global Warming will make Canada a vacation hot-spot. To which one can only respond: dude, if someplace like Winnipeg warms to the level characteristic of an “optimal holiday destination”, it still won't lure the tourists, it will just make the flies and mosquitoes bigger.

However, Mr. Tol seems to have had a change of heart, especially with respect to the Stern Review, which he once described as "alarmist and incompetent". In "On Setting Near-term Policy while the Dust Begins to Settle", he states that

"The major messages of the Review’s assessment of the current science are sound."

And:

A persuasive case can be made that climate risks are real and increasingly threatening. If follows that some sort of policy will be required, and the least cost approach necessarily involves starting now.

Further, the most efficacious means of meeting the climate change threat is a carbon tax designed to make lower or near zero carbon technologies more attractive than, for example, coal:

...a tax, increasing at the rate of interest a la Hotelling, would produce a persistent and predictable increase in the cost of using carbon that would inspire cost-reducing innovation and fuel switching in the transportation, building, and energy supply sectors of our economy.6 If carbon were taxed at the point it entered an economy (a couple thousand sources for the United States as opposed to millions of end-users), then it would be dispersed appropriately throughout the economy with relative prices of thousands of goods changing in proportion to the underlying carbon intensities. Moreover, it would generate revenue. The $15 per ton of carbon dioxide tax noted above would, for example, generate something like $90 billion in tax revenue in the United States in 2007 if it were paid on every ton of carbon embodied in every unit of fossil fuel consumed. This is revenue that could be used to offset the regressive nature of the carbon tax itself, by underwriting tax credits for citizens with taxable incomes below a specified level. The substitution effect would still apply, of course, so carbon conservation could be expected even from the beneficiaries of the credits. Tax revenue could also be used to reduce other distortionary taxes. It could even be used to fund research into alternative energy sources.

And if Mr. Tol can change his mind, so can I. Richard, I once described your hair as "freakish". I was wrong. It is not freakish, but magnificent. In fact, given the utter paucity of hair among the skeptic crowd, I am surprised that they didn't make you their king. So let the freak flags fly!

In fact, an even weirder thing is that the paper quoted above is slated to appear in E&E. Could it be that they're having a change of heart similar to Richard's over at the Denialist house organ? Naw. That would be too much to hope for.

The Tiniest Denier

Meet 15 year-old Kristen Byrnes of Portland, Maine, the Denialist Industry's latest sweetheart. Kristen forecast the end of the Australian drought in late May, so she's zero for one in predictions, but this hasn't stopped high level climate change skeptics like Steve McIntyre and Richard Tol, whose hair must be seen to be believed, from praising her website and in particular her attack on "An Inconvenient Truth", at least until the many errors in it have been pointed out. Mr. Tol:

I never said that Kristen Byrnes's piece is "more accurate" than An Inconvenient Truth or the Stern Review. All three contain basic and unnecessary errors, but I did not count them and I did not compare them.

Now, why this post? A couple of reasons. Firstly, the fact that Kristen's is being used by the "bigs" in the climate skeptic business to in effect launder their attacks on figures like Al Gore and James Hansen is an indication of the extent of their desperation. Secondly, there has been some speculation that Kristen was a fictional character along the lines of Andura Smetacek, and I would suggest the photo from the newsbusters site should put that line of inquiry to rest. Thirdly, I have been looking for an excuse to post a picture of Mr. Tol and his freaky hair, and now I have one.







One Of Kristen's
Many Fans!