Bob Murphy on Heartland and Gleick

Bob Murphy is probably the one "Austrian" school blogger that I make a sincere effort to follow. I don't agree with everything -- or even most -- of what he writes, but Bob always manages to present his thoughts in an insightful and humorous way. More importantly, I think that he a) Genuinely tries to be fair to his intellectual opponents, and b) Actually has a good grasp of what "mainstream" economics is about (unlike some others). While I enjoy reading his blog, I generally shy away from commenting there... if for no other reason than I know how time consuming internet debates are. However, I decided to respond to his recent post on the Heartland Institute / Peter Gleick affair.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, you can have a gander at Bob's post to see how the whole thing went down. In short, water scientist and AGW proponent, Peter Gleick, claims to have received an anonymous package containing an apparent climate "strategy memo" from the Heartland Institute. Among other things, this document made some pretty wild claims about how to advance "Heartland's" skeptic message, including the money line that they should focus on strategies that would be "effective in dissuading teachers from teaching science". Bob claims that this suggestion is so obviously bogus that anyone reading it should immediately have twigged that it was a fake -- as, indeed, Heartland later confirmed.

Now, I'm not entirely sure if it was as blatantly obvious as all that... especially if you know anything about Heartland's very dubious history when it comes to scientific matters. However, Bob's point that the pro-AWG blogosphere should have been far more circumspect about the whole thing certainly deserves full consideration.[*] At the very least, let me emphasize that I am not disputing its fraudulent origins here. Regardless, we do know that Gleick subsequently obtained legitimate funding documents under false pretenses by impersonating a Heartland board member. These were then released together with the fake strategy memo. Unfortunately for Gleick, Heartland very quickly cried foul and he was eventually forced/motivated to come out as the source... effectively tarnishing his reputation as an ethical scientist in the process.

You can look through the comments under Bob's post (and the follow up) to see my extended thoughts, but my main points are this:

1. Criticizing Gleick for going under an false name to obtain private documents is very fair game. That so many pro-AWG climate bloggers initially failed to spot the "obvious" (Bob's words) forgery amongst the legitimate documents should also be cause for introspection by that camp. However, where was the equivalent moral outrage from the skeptic camp when the hacked "Climategate" emails were released? For all their indignation at Gleick's actions, Heartland itself was only too happy to cheer on these emails when this suited its agenda... despite their illegal origins and a raft of investigations and subsequent exonerations. It's also very disingenuous to pretend that a lot of skepticism isn't founded on distorted and manipulated use of science, because it certainly is. (Example A: Cherry-picking of evidence and selective quotation of the Climategate emails.)

2. Similarly, I feel that Bob is trying to paint this as some false dichotomy, where the debate only exists between measured skeptics and rabid alarmists. This simply isn't the case.

3. Despite his unethical behaviour, I don't think that Gleick wrote the false strategy memo. It just doesn't add up. As I wrote here: If you wrote that document, you knew it was bogus. And if you knew it was bogus, you’d have to know that Heartland would protest loudly and immediately as soon as it was released. The truth would out fairly quickly; as indeed it did. [...]You don’t need a course in game theory to realise that [simply no good could] come from releasing a document that you know to be fake… Much less owning up to being that moronic in public. Gleick has his faults, but I certainly doubt that he is *that* dumb. There's a lot of uncertainty whichever way you cut it. However, my best guess for the source of this false document is that it was written by some anti-AWG person or group who wanted to trick Gleick into releasing bogus info and thereby undermine his credibility. (There are other possibilities too... though, again, none are completely satisfying.)

UPDATE: This is interesting. Running stylometric and textometric analysis on the fake strategy memo suggests that a Heartland staff member is more likely to have written it than Peter Gleick. (There's still a lot of uncertainty, but it does take consideration of the fact that certain sentences were apparently lifted from the authentic documents.). Not only that, but how did "Heartland-aligned blogger Steven Mosher" manage to finger Gleick so confidently before he came out as the leak? The plot thickens...
UPDATE 2: This analysis using the same software suggests the exact opposite that, i.e. that Gleick is the more likely candidate. Oh, the confusion!
UPDATE 3: Climate scientist James Annan thinks that textometric analysis is a complete waste of time. He also argues (quite plausibly I must admit) that Gleick *could* have been shortsighted enough to write the fake document himself: "Under pressure of time and under great stress, he wasn't thinking that clearly at this point..."
___
[*] Two important issues bear mentioning here. First, Bob's analysis relies heavily on the reporting of Megan McArdle, who was quick to urge caution about the legitimacy of the strategy memo despite her strong endorsement of AWG theory. Second, while most pro-AWG climate blogs have removed and distanced themselves from the controversial memo, the original outlet for the leak, Desmogblog, are sticking to their guns w.r.t. it's authenticity. (More from them here.)

Quote of the day - Rebellion

After the previous post, I'm afraid it's unavoidable:

"If they give you ruled paper, write the other way."

- Juan Ramón Jiménez

Then, via the GF and her sorcerer's ways design awareness, take a look at this novel writing pad...

On censorship and misreading Ray Bradbury

Earlier today I read Bill Maher's op-ed in the NYT: Please Stop Apologizing. I deeply agree with his general point and am reminded of the way he put it -- rather more bluntly -- some months ago on his show Real Time: "Stop organizing life around the people who don't get the joke. Fuck them if they don't get [the] joke."

Touché.

Ricky Gervais is often quoted as making the same point, but in a milder form: Just because someone is offended, doesn't make them right.

Going back to Maher's op-ed, I couldn't help but think, as I inevitably do when the topic of censorship comes up, of Ray Bradbury's dystopian classic, Fahrenheit 451. I read the book in high school and my abiding memory -- apart from a great opening quote and the central irony of firemen actually setting fire to things -- has been that it was meant as a warning against the dangers of censorship.

I'm surprised to learn, then, that Bradbury actually disputes this as being the major theme of the book. The Wikipedia page has a decent summary of things and also links to the following video clip from Bradbury's website:

In his own words: "I wasn't worried about freedom, I was worried about people being turned in morons by TV."

The Wiki entry also links to this LA Times article that was written after Bradbury was awarded the 2007 Pulitzer Prize. The following passage caught my eye:

[Bradbury] says the culprit in Fahrenheit 451 is not the state — it is the people. Unlike Orwell’s 1984, in which the government uses television screens to indoctrinate citizens, Bradbury envisioned television as an opiate. In the book, Bradbury refers to televisions as “walls” and its actors as “family,” a truth evident to anyone who has heard a recap of network shows in which a fan refers to the characters by first name, as if they were relatives or friends. 

[snip] 

Bradbury imagined a democratic society whose diverse population turns against books: Whites reject Uncle Tom’s Cabin and blacks disapprove of Little Black Sambo. He imagined not just political correctness, but a society so diverse that all groups were “minorities.” He wrote that at first they condensed the books, stripping out more and more offending passages until ultimately all that remained were footnotes, which hardly anyone read. Only after people stopped reading did the state employ firemen to burn books.

AMUSING UPDATE: Someone should put Bradbury in touch with his publisher. I see that the book is still being billed as "The classic bestseller about censorship" on Amazon. OTOH, why fix something if it ain't broke?

At least our benevolent Google overlords care

about their water footprint.

Like thermal-based power plants, data centers are thirsty bastards when it comes to cooling water. The above video comes via Forbes, who also inform us:

Google did not reveal exactly how much water the Douglas County data center consumes but in an e-mail company spokeswoman Kate Hurowitz said, “It varies from day to day, but a typical data center of this size can use hundreds of thousands of gallons a day.” 

I can barely say Chattahoochee River, let alone spell it, but they look like good, salt o' the earth folk to me. I'm happy if they're happy.

Peter Frost, executive director of the Douglasville-Douglas County Water and Sewer Authority, said Google is saving taxpayer money as the local government now does not have to treat as much wastewater. 

“That saves capacity for future homeowners as well as businesses,” he said in the video. [Thanks Pete, we saw the video! - Ed.]

Libertarianism and the paleo diet - Natural or strange bedfellows?

I want follow up on the previous post by making a side observation on the paleo diet's marked popularity within libertarian circles -- especially anarcho-capitalists. Certainly, prominent libertarians like Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods and even Russ Roberts have gone "primal" in a very public sense.

Now, sure, this makes sense at the superficial level: It probably comes very naturally to many libertarians that they reject government-endorsed advice, take pride in swimming against the tide of mainstream thought, and so forth. Indeed, here is an article from LRC that openly flaunts the "ideological parallels" that underpin the libertarian-paleo connection. (Thanks Google!)

However, doing something simply because it feels "familiar" is likely to produce counterproductive results sooner rather than later. This is particularly likely to be true when it comes to endorsing heterodox thinking across unrelated topics.[*] After all, there's a reason why certain ideas tend to emerge as dominant over time: They explain the world around us better than the competing paradigms. (Obviously, this can change as we gain more knowledge. Science is a process after all and not an end result.)

More fundamentally, it seems to me that the underlying scientific approach of the paleo movement -- as outlined by Gary Taubes at least -- is at odds with much of what characterizes libertarian economic thought of the Mises.org variety. I've had my say about the dangers of extreme a priorism before and still consider the rejection of empirical testing by some Austrians to be a completely nonsensical dead end. Indeed, the a prioristic approach is antithetical to the empirically-based scientific approach that Taubes so strongly advocates.

Given his popularity among these groups, I wonder what Taubes makes of this?

[*] Rockwell, in particular, seems prone to indulging just about every crank,conspiratorial, anti-science theory around. (They're all there, by the way. HIV/AIDS, evolution versus creationism, vaccines and autism, climate change... Even David Icke, alien technology and unlimited energy!)

===

Speaking of libertarian-based economic research, a good example of why experimental design is so important can be found by looking at Selgin, Lastrape and White's (2010) much-circulated paper, Has the Fed has been a failure?. The study itself is a great piece of historical writing that makes an important contribution to the literature. It also uses some fairly advanced empirical techniques such as GARCH time-series modelling. However, SLW don't provide a compelling counterfactual and, as such, their work can at best be described as a "pre-post" evaluation. Despite some overzealous reviews in libertarian circles then, this study was never meant to provide a definitive answer to the question that it asked. To their credit, SLW actually emphasize right at the outset (p. 1):

These findings do not prove that any particular alternative to the Fed would in fact have delivered superior outcomes: to reach such a conclusion would require a counterfactual exercise too ambitious to fall within the scope of what is intended as a preliminary survey. The findings do, however, suggest that the need for a systematic exploration of alternatives to the established monetary system, involving the necessary counterfactual exercises, is no less pressing today than it was a century ago. 

UPDATE: Dan Kuehn weighs in with some thoughts here.  He's not completely convinced that SLW heed their own warning...

The language of science: Paleo edition

I've developed an armchair interest in the so-called "paleo" diet. Among other things, my curiosity was piqued when Tim Noakes -- one of South Africa's most respected international experts in his chosen field of sports science -- came out with a series of very public endorsements... In the process, disavowing views that he had held and promoted for the bulk of his professional career.

"Hey, if it worked for Raquel Welch..."

What really makes me think that this paleo thing is at least worth considering, however, is the language that prominent paleos use when talking about the science underlying nutritional advice. A good example of this can be found in a column by Gary Taubes that was written in response to a much-publicized study by Willett et al. (2012), which purports to show that "eating red meat is associated with a sharply increased risk of death from cancer and heart disease". (HT: A bunch of people.) Taubes is a science writer and, near as I can tell, the intellectual popularizer of the paleo movement. Here he makes some great comments about what characterizes good scientific research:

Science is ultimately about establishing cause and effect. It’s not about guessing. You come up with a hypothesis — force x causes observation y — and then you do your best to prove that it’s wrong. If you can’t, you tentatively accept the possibility that your hypothesis was right. [...]Here’s Karl Popper saying the same thing: “The method of science is the method of bold conjectures and ingenious and severe attempts to refute them.” The bold conjectures, the hypotheses, making the observations that lead to your conjectures… that’s the easy part. The critical or rectifying episode, which is to say, the ingenious and severe attempts to refute your conjectures, is the hard part. Anyone can make a bold conjecture. (Here’s one: space aliens cause heart disease.) Making the observations and crafting them into a hypothesis is easy. Testing them ingeniously and severely to see if they’re right is the rest of the job — say 99 percent of the job of doing science, of being a scientist. 

This should all be drawing nods of approval from anyone trained in the scientific method... say, an economist interested in applied research (pick me!). Gathering a lot of data and observing correlations is only the start. What we really have to do is isolate causal effects and, crucially, establish a reasonable counterfactual. Taubes goes on to critique the Willett et al. study by describing how "associative" relationships are only good for generating hypotheses (i.e. about the causality of those relationships), which must then be tested using experimental settings. Willett and co. apparently don't concern themselves with this vital last step; hence the criticism.

In his article, Taubes concentrates on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are the design setting of choice for conducting medical experiments. Unfortunately, carrying out a meaningful experiment in an economic setting can be even more complicated. All too often, we simply aren't able to control for all the relevant factors, or simulate activity within an economy as and when we would want. That means that RCTs are pretty much off the table from the get-go.

Nevertheless, the good news is that empirical researchers have developed some powerful alternatives in the absence of the "laboratory" ideal. We use natural experiments, instrumental variables, difference-in-differences, and other study designs to simulate the laboratory setting and randomize treatment effects. Using these approaches helps us to be reasonably confident in answering many important economic and policy questions.[*] Say, does a minimum wage increase unemployment? (Much to my own surprise, the answer appears to be not really.) Or, how does crime respond to an increased police presence? (Well, according to this excellent study, a 10 percent increase in the police activity of London boroughs brought about a 3 percent drop in crime rates.)  If you click on the above links, you'll find an in-depth discussion of the particular circumstances and methodologies that allowed the researchers to treat their studies as experimental settings. These are just two examples, but they provide valuable insight into how good empirical economics is conducted in practice.

Of course, it should also be noted that economists and other social scientists are increasingly reliant on approaches that mimic the laboratory settings of natural scientists. Two of the most obvious candidates being experimental economics and field experiments. However, my main point in the above paragraph is about how we can still establish causation in the absence of such idealised, controlled settings.

Going back to the paleo diet, I'm still fairly agnostic about the whole thing despite my curiosity.[**]  I certainly don't know enough at this stage to confidently say whether Gary Taubes and co. are fundamentally correct in their views about nutrition. For all I know, the evidence may not be nearly as compelling as they make out. They may even be misrepresenting the views and research efforts of mainstream nutritional experts. However, I do know that Taubes talks about science in a way that makes sense to me. At the very least, that makes me think that he is someone worth listening to.
____
[*] Yes, it is true that definitive answers to some major economic questions remain more elusive. Ideology plays a big role as well, but the lack of an experimental setting partly explains why economists disagree on, say, how effective a stimulus package will be in reducing unemployment. 
[**] As my cunning nom de plume will testify to, dietary concerns are not high on my list of priorities. I don't feel particularly compelled to change my eating habits as of yet.

International Energy Workshop in June

Sweet news.

I'll be presenting my paper on electricity prices and water scarcity at this year's International Energy Workshop, which will be held in...

Cape Town!

Come to Papa...

Great to know that I'll be heading home for a visit and even better to have my trip sponsored. GF will be coming too... provided the (slightly ridiculous) NOK3000 nightly accommodation allowance doesn't cause her to spontaneously combust with excitement.

The best thing about Norwegian prices?
They travel so well.

Why do we pay tax on plastic bags?

Because here's why:



Forget the environment. This flagrant disregard for personal space must end!

Climate mitigation as a secondary benefit

But keep it quiet.

I spent some time last week with the Dutch economist, Johannes Bollen, who was visiting my university to present his research on the "co-benefits" of climate and air pollution policies. His basic argument is that you can go a long way towards meeting (global) climate goals simply by tackling (local) air pollution. In fact, his most up-to-date model suggests that rigorously addressing air pollution -- finding the optimal balance between health improvements and increased energy costs -- will get us 75 percent of the way towards the "2°C target" of the Copenhagen Accord.

Those results bear repeating: No global carbon tax or binding international treaties required. Just individual countries focused on cleaning up their own air pollution and we have already solved three-quarters of the climate problem. It sounds too good to be true and, yet, there's a growing body of evidence that points towards similar conclusions.[*]

For instance, you might remember an AER paper by Muller et al. (2011) that I mentioned a few months back. Their study made a big splash because, among other things, it showed that the price of coal-fired electricity should be several times higher than it currently is, given the adverse effects that local air pollutants (small particulates, SO2, NOx) have on human health and productivity. Again, nothing to do with climate effects; just accounting for the local health damages caused by dirty air.

It almost goes without saying that this promises to be a very important research area. The climate change narrative -- despite many excellent scientists and economists producing meticulous research -- has become bogged down by its own press and politics. We're at such an impasse that I simply can't see the necessary political will (and public buy-in?) to move us forward in any meaningful way over the next decade.

Focusing on local pollution, however, allows us to abstract from the most problematic areas of climate change; whether that is the unjustified/misplaced skepticism about the underlying science, or the longer-term uncertainties that make cost-benefit analysis of climate change mitigation difficult. From a purely economic perspective, it also frees you from the inherent problems associated with a global commons; such as competing incentives, inter-temporal conflicts, lack of enforcement, and free-rider problems. Those kinds of issues are dramatically simplified when you move from the global scale to the national scale, and narrow your time horizon.

The thing is, and while it's obviously great to kill two birds with one stone, I actually think that we should be very careful about emphasizing the climate link. Rightly or wrongly, policy geared towards tackling climate change is an extremely touchy subject. Yes, it's absurd to think that there is some grand communist plot at hand whenever someone mentions "cap-and-trade" or "carbon tax". (Also ironic when you consider that accounting for environmental damages is about putting an end to the socialized benefits that polluters enjoy at the expense of everyone else.) However, we have to acknowledge and operate within the practical confines of our world... which, more often than not, means making allowances for the irrationalities, whims and idiocies of our fellow citizens. And, yes, I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: Tackling local air pollution will bring about marked improvements in human health and economic welfare, both now and in the future. We also have good reason to believe that it will go a long way towards mitigating climate problems. Unfortunately, climate change is a subject that comes with a lot of baggage. I'd prefer to see the results without bringing up the baggage.

UPDATE: The British Medical Journal gets in on the action here.

[*] I haven't scrutinized Johannes' model in enough detail to proclaim his results as gospel truth. That being said, seeing his presentation and having talked through the underlying methodology certainly makes me confident that he has carefully covered his bases. I'll try to keep tabs on how his working paper develops or is revised over the coming months.

Happy St Paddy's

I hope my Irish forebears would approve.



I make no apologies for this being my favourite version.

~ 

As I was going over the Cork and Kerry Mountains 

I saw Captain Farrell and his money he was countin' 

I first produced my pistol and then produced my rapier 

I said "Stand and deliver, or the devil he may take ya!" 

I took all of his money and it was a pretty penny 

I took all of his money and I brought it home to Molly 

She swore that she loved me, no never would she leave me 

But the devil take that woman, for you know she tricked me easy 

Musha rain dum-a-doo dum-a-da 

Whack for my daddy-o 

Whack for my daddy-o 

There's whiskey in the jar-o

Being drunk and weary I went to Molly's chamber 

Taking my Molly with me, but I never knew the danger 

For, about six or maybe seven, in walked Captain Farrell 

I jumped up, fired my pistols, and I shot him with both barrels

Musha rain dum-a-doo dum-a-da, ha, ya 

Whack for my daddy-o 

Whack for my daddy-o 

There's whiskey in the jar-o 

Now some men like a fishin', some men like the fowlin' 

Some men like to hear, to hear the cannonball a-roarin' 

But me, I like sleepin', `specially in my Molly's chamber 

But here I am in prison, here I am with a ball and chain!

Musha rain dum-a-doo dum-a-da, ha, ya 

Whack for my daddy-o 

Whack for my daddy-o 

There's whiskey in the jar-o 

Whiskey in the jar-o

Musha rain dum-a-doo dum-a-da 

Musha rain dum-a-doo dum-a-da, hey 

Musha rain dum-a-doo dum-a-da 

Musha rain dum-a-doo dum-a-da, ya