Re: [asa] Global Warming, Ethics, and Social Sciences

Apropos of economics, /Philosophy of Science/, 71:263-285 (July 2004) has
the article by Ole Rogeberg, "Taking Absurd Theories Seriously: Economics
and the Case of Rational Addiction Theories." I quote only a small part,
the statement of a referee about one paper:

Their work "solved" a puzzle the referee pointed out would puzzle only
someone ignorant of well-established findings from psychology. "The
authors of the paper--both smart economists doing very interesting work
that spans disciplines--replied that they recognize their position is
psychologically inaccurate and deliberately naive, but they are trying to
publish the paper in an economics journal, and the dominant assumptions
in the field require it."

Al's statement that science trumps economics is not nearly strong enough.
Dave

On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:23:50 -0500 "Al Koop" <koopa@gvsu.edu> writes:
> >>> "David Opderbeck" <dopderbeck@gmail.com> 01/19/07 8:23 AM >>>
>
> The problem is, the ecologists can only tell us so much, and we need
> insight
> from economists and other social scientists if we want to make wise
> policy
> choices. I think this is my biggest concern about the public debate
> right
> now. Anyone who questions the sort of radical action that Gore &
> co.
> propose is labeled as anti-science. It is not anti-science,
> however, to
> insist on sound economic and social models before signing on to a
> radical
> policy agenda. It's pro-science, or better, simple prudence.
>
>
> AK:
> This is my last post on this matter. The ecologists (and other
> scientists in other cases) indeed can tell us only so much, but I
> insist that they can be highly confident that they can set some
> limits and what they tell us about such limits cannot be ignored by
> economists or anybody else. No biological organisms will grow if
> one of the essential nutrients is exhausted from the environment or
> if waste builds up to toxic levels--period. In my opinion, any
> economic model is worthless that suggests that organisms can grow
> and exceed the limits set by nature. In other words, I am confident
> that science trumps economics. If economists respect those limits,
> then they can tell us a lot, but too often they insist those limits
> simply don’t exist.
>
> But science is not so robust that on complex issues it can tell us
> precisely what these limits are and when we are nearing them or when
> we have reached them. The problem is that when reasonable
> knowledgeable people think we are approaching these limits it is not
> easy to convince the general public that this is the case. In fact,
> if you are politically savvy, you know the public does not like to
> hear bad news, and if you haven’t hit any limits yet it is pretty
> easy to convince the public that there is no limit in sight. So I
> tell people that we now are generating 85 million barrels of oil a
> day. The economists tell us that we will require 120 million barrels
> by 2025 and lots more by 2050 if the world economy is to remain on
> track. I am confident that the 1-2% growth that we have been
> experiencing in oil supply over the last 100 years simply will not
> continue for another 50 years. The response of most is: “How do
> you know? It hasn’t happened yet. Those scientists a!
> re so smart they will figure out a way so we will have enough
> energy for our cars.” [ It is amazing that the general public
> finds it easy to believe that scientists are so smart they can come
> up with all sorts of advances to make life better, but when they
> suggest that there are problems looming on the horizon the
> scientists suddenly become bumbling idiots.] It isn’t easy getting
> elected telling the public you will vote to spend money today for a
> future problem that they cannot see that requires them to believe
> some scientific projections about limits. All the opposing
> politician has to do is point out previous alarms that were sounded
> that turned out to be wrong. Certain oil people projected in the
> past 10 years that we should have already reached the limit of oil
> supply, but we haven’t. This is good enough evidence for many
> (probably a significant majority I would say) that we don’t have
> to be concerned about limits to our energy supply. Likewise, I see
> the s!
> ame thing happening for global warming—reasonable knowledgea!
> ble peop
> le largely agree that humans are messing up the atmosphere and there
> are likely to be dire consequences for future generations unless we
> take some steps that cost us significantly in some way today. But
> people don’t want to take these steps unless they are sure they
> are needed, and there are plenty of people that tell them these
> steps are unnecessary. Since the global warming effects will creep
> upon us slowly, if they do indeed happen, widespread support for
> mitigating global warming effects won’t materialize until too
> late, unless leaders have enough confidence in today’s scientific
> projections to act on it. I predict we will do little to restrict
> greenhouse gas emissions and future gations will get to experience
> the results.
>
> Now referring to Randy Issacs recent post, which I generally agree
> with, almost all knowledgeable atmospheric scientists agree that
> global warming is the result of human influence. So who am I to
> tell them I think they are wrong. Why should anybody besides top
> atmospheric scientists be able to claim they are wrong? Who decides
> they are wrong, and on what basis? Is it really a good idea to let
> voters decide between someone who says they accept this view and
> somebody who says they don’t accept this? What will the effects
> of this global warming be? This will have to be determined by the
> geologists, ecologists, oceanographers, climatologists, etc. Who are
> the general public to tell them they are wrong? Getting back to your
> original question, David, we can indeed let the sociologists and
> economists give us guidance about whether the public would like to
> see Florida under water in a 100 years or whether they would they
> rather
> take expensive steps to prevent this today. But what the public
> really wants to believe is that they don’t have to make that
> choice; what they would really want to hear is that there is no
> global warming problem, or at least none that we could prevent. Of
> course, no one wants to spend any money to reduce carbon emissions
> if they are harmless. Of course no one wants to spend enormous
> amounts of money to reduce carbon emissions if it won't put a dent
> in global warming. But aren't these the questions that science will
> have to answer? Isn’t that where we are stuck?
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Jan 19 14:05:01 2007