Who’s going to be first to shout that one down?

Flowerpower? Matt Munro?

We’re on course for the hottest year ever. Already.

5 is a point that many really don’t get. Marty Weisman’s (spelling?) comment on the Stern Review. Yes, greater incertainty over the effects should indeed lead to taking the risks more seriously….and thus to doing more rather than less.

Characterizing it as a tragedy of the commons is, in fact, sheer genius. Because it is – yet I’ve never thought about it in those terms before. I guess the scale continues to bedevil me.

“Characterizing it as a tragedy of the commons is, in fact, sheer genius. Because it is – yet I’ve never thought about it in those terms before.”

Eh? Where have you been for the past two decades? Of course it’s a T of the Commons.

Blimey…..

Wouldn’t be the same Grantham as in “The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change” at the LSE, chaired by Lord Stern, and the place where Bob Ward works, would it?

And the same Jeremy Grantham who’s married to well known ecoloon…oops…philanthropist, Hannelore Grantham – the couple being behind the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment and who jointly coughed up for the Grantham Institute at Imperial College?

No, it can’t possibly be the same Grantham who’s been funding the warmist industry for years or Sunny wouldn’t be citing his views as if they were news.

No, it can’t possibly be the same Grantham who’s been funding the warmist industry for years

Better than funding by Exxon eh Flowerpower?

Flowerpower hasn’t noticed the $9 trillion global fossil fuel industry? Why are Exxon funding anti-AGW propaganda when, according to the denialists weird reductive reasoning, all they have to do is put a bit of money into funding some science scientist that can easily disprove AGW. BP (until recently) were making net profits several times greater that the entire UK science budget.

Grantham, like any reasonable and intelligent person, has looked at the evidence for AGW, has seen that we face a major problem, and puts some of his money and influence into his favoured cause. What is wrong with a wealthy man funding science? For all but anti-science and anti-intellectual types, science and academic learning are a considered good causes . Would it be better if Grantham put his money into luxury yachts and premier league football club?

This is such old news. The Grantham Institutes opened ages ago. There are lots of fund managers and unsurprisingly they have the same diversity of views that everyone else does.

As far as Weitzman’s argument goes, it is definitely worth taking seriously but Jim Manzi has written a very persuasive response.

Sunny @ 6

Better than funding by Exxon eh Flowerpower?

I dunno, Sunny. I rather think you’d be a bit concerned if you ever delved deeply into the funding of warmist alarmism. Swiss Re and other insurance interests fund a lot of climate bollocks…. and the ubiquitous Bob Ward (Grantham/Stern’s mouthpiece) was recruited from RMS, which makes its money warning about catastrophes, floods, hurricanes (sound familiar?) and is owned by…….er…..horror…. The Daily Mail & General Trust.

Oh look Munich Re’s at it too:

New world-leading Grantham Research Institute opens for business as LSE joins forces with Munich Re on climate change

http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2008/Granthamlaunch.aspx

Note this bit…

Climate change is a central strategic topic for Munich Re. …. we see opportunities for us in addressing the substantial demand for insurance-based solutions

I bet. The greater the alarm, the higher the premiums.

Basically Flowerpower, in dismissing Jeremy Grantham and others you putting forward a variant of the ad hominem logical fallacy – specifically ad hominem circumstantial:

“someone is in circumstances such that he or she is disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false”.

Paul A

No, I’m not dismissing anyone or making any ad hominem remark. I’m merely pointing out that the green/agm lobby receives substantially more funding from commercial sources than anything that the oil industry might pay to support the sceptic side.

Sceptic arguments are often dismissed as being bought and paid for by vested interests. I’m just pointing out the gross hypocrisy of this as warmist funding also comes from vested interests and is some orders of magnitude greater.

Looks like even Lord Stern now has interests:

Sir Nicholas Stern to join IDEAGlobal Group as Vice Chairman

IDEAGlobal Group includes IDEAglobal, which focuses on capital markets and economic trends and market analysis; and IDEAcarbon, which focuses on carbon markets and ratings of carbon investments.

@11 Paul A

Indeed, it is a fallacy to argue that because funding for resarch comes from a specific source it makes such research inherently trustworthy. There is nothing inherently wrong with Exxon funding research into the effects of CO2 emissions, or even tobacco companies funding research into the effects of smoking – they have a legitimate interest in such questions, so in the first instance it is neccessary to consider the actual scientific merits of their claims. But if people are publishing scientific research of dubious merit, or propagating misinformation in general then it is often instructive to look at whether there are certain interested parties in the background. When a common pattern starts to emerge then it is reasonable to suspect a concerted attempt to muddy the waters and create confusion in the minds of the public, and people will naturally be inclined to be suspicious of further research or information coming from such sources.

So if Flowerpower can point to any serious flaws in Grantham’s arguments or in research funded by Swiss Re and Munich Re then he may be able to make a case of impropriety, but otherwise he can’t.

andrew adams

You hardly need me to pick holes in Stern’s research, it’s been pretty thoroughly discredited already…..e.g.

the Stern report has taken a severe beating in the years since it was released. Even the alarmist-friendly BBC was forced to acknowledge in 2007 that “the report may have been loved by the politicians and headline writers but when climate scientists and environmental economists read the 670-page review, many said there were serious flaws. These critics are not climate change sceptics, but researchers with years of experience who believe that human-induced climate change is real and that we need to act now.”

Richard Tol, a leading environmental economist, said of the report: “If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood I would give him a ‘D’ for diligence; but more likely I would give him an ‘F’ for fail. There is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make.”

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/07/22/jeremy_grantham_contrarian_up_to_a_point_98582.html

“Characterizing it as a tragedy of the commons is, in fact, sheer genius. Because it is – yet I’ve never thought about it in those terms before.”

A lot of his argument is an excellent example of rephrasing the soft environmental arguments in hard economics and science, and is thus thoroughly creditable. Like a good song, a good argument can take a lot of forms, but a bullshit one is bullshit however the deniers rephrase it. The other bit I liked was directly linking denial mentality with traits exhibited by people who spend all their time around markets and libertarian politics (which go together like polar bears and rapidly learning to swim).

Flowerpower – don’t start dissing Nick Stern, or my Mum will have to have a word – she was a friend of his at university. Don’t start something you can’t finish, is all I’m saying, OK?

Tol isn’t exactly neutral though is he. His views on the discount rate are completely different to those of Stern, that’s not the end of discussion, it is the start. His views on climate change are pretty fringe and it is wrong to say he has thoroughly discredited Stern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol#Climate_Change

He thinks adapting to climate change will be more expensive to stern does and that the damage done will be less. That is one opinion among many and is not a common view. I could find a paper disagreeing with Tol and say he’s been “thoroughly discredited” but that would add nothing to the debate. Stern has problems but it is still incredibily influential. In what ways has it been discredited? (I’m aware you probably have links, but I would rather those were posted than an excerpt of Tol ad homing Stern).

Seriously, stop ad homing people yourself and by proxy, it is a really boring way to debate.

Flowerpower, I was referring to Grantham’s views on the science of GW, not Stern’s views on the economics.

“Looks like even Lord Stern now has interests:”

Or he may have been hired because he meets the criteria for the job – mainly knowing about these things. Its why you spend all day giving your opinions for free on the internet and people who know what they are talking about receive money for their services.

@19

For free? You must be joking. I wouldn’t even read this blog for free, let alone take the trouble to comment on it.