Below is what has appeared so far. The point is Richard's central comment, divided into four parts:
off topic, and in the public record
- climate is changing
- greenhouse gas emissions are a major cause
- climate change is, in the long-term, net harmful
- polarization a la Nuccitelli hampers climate policy
No problem with points one and two, and all those who love or hate RSJT on the basis that he is a denial monkey should read and digest.
Point three is of course a key matter and IMO worth engaging in discussions about. Where Tol sometimes seems to miss the point is that climate change is, ipso facto, a long-term problem (it may also be a short-term problem, but this is open to discussion, too). The point is that his qualifier 'in the long term' is redundant. There is a tendency for people to extrapolate from this idea that it is not a 'problem' in the short term, therefore it is not necessary to create mitigation policy now. To reach this conclusion is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the risks and problems which science has highlighted.
Which brings us to point four. Richard accuses Dana of polarising the issues and thereby obstructing policy. Anyone familiar with his track record will find this a most peculiar claim, since Tol has allowed those who wish to obstruct policy, notably the GWPF, a number of Tory MPs and people such as Matt Ridley to persistently misrepresent his work without correction, whilst at the same time offering self as critic to those, such as Cook and Nuccitelli, who are clear advocates of policy action.
I believe that Richard Tol believes himself to be a rational, impartial observer, but you have to judge a person (insofar as judgment is required) on what they do, not just on what they say. By this parameter, Tol has by default placed himself in the 'denial' camp. if this sits uncomfortably with him he must respond to it. By distancing himself from the people who misrepresent him to obstruct climate policy he can undo some of the harm already caused by these people. Should he feel no obligation or responsibility to so do, one feels inclined to presume that he is satisfied with this state of affairs, and by implication supportive of it. In which case he should stop whinging about the whole thing and accept that to many people he is a 'bad guy' and his actions (or inactions) prove him so.
Come on Richard, show your capacity for decency. There is a very important discussion of policy to be had and it could benefit from your input, but before that you need to detach yourself from your current reputation. Will you do that?
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
Kudos due for paying attention and bothering to respond. TY. I sort of know this anyway, really, because I've read your (available) papers. But people often misunderstand you - probably because you are as guilty as Dana of stirring things up, so I think the polarisation comment is a bit rich.
I know many 'denial' commenters such as Ridley etc depend heavily on your work, especially as distorted by Lomborg via Copenhagen, but you never seem to spend time correcting their misunderstandings or inaccuracies. As a result, there's a tendency to place you one one side of 'the divide'. This may be unfair in your eyes, but it is perfectly understandable in mine.
Polarization? Isn't that the bread and butter of journalism? I agree it can be frustrating, but via friends in the USA it is clear that there the discussions are not just polarised, they are politicised.
Unlikely so many others, Ridley always checks with me before he cites my work. Although I do not necessarily agree with his interpretation, he has never misrepresented my work.
ReplyDeleteThank you for responding - a pleasant surprise. A very neatly expressed summation of one of those who is clearly influenced by his reading of your work. I'll take back the 'misrepresentation' because it isn't really relevant. It's the interpretation which I and others have a problem with.
DeleteI have actually bothered to read some of your papers (the ones I could blag off the internet) and it is clear that you unequivocally express the opinion that progressive climate changes will at some point create a net negative economic effect. yet your 'interpreters' blithely ignore this, and you blithely ignore their misinterpretation. What am I to make of that?
Setting aside the rather complex question of a timeline for net negative economic effects - I and others disagree with your conclusion of c 2080 - the point which is missed is that those negatives persist out ad infinitum (effectively).
As you pointed out, this whole subject is inclined to be polarised by commenters, not always to the benefit of policy discussions, but as a consequence those of us who do bother to make a study and produce material, as well as comment on it, are also polarised, whether we wish to be or not.
As things stand, you have been polarised into the 'denial' meme where I don't think you should belong, except that your persistence in pursuing your 'opponents' allows many observers to justify the belief that you do belong there.
This is already too long. Maybe more later.
On behalf of a commenter on G+, Susan O Anderson:
ReplyDeleteI found this to be clear and useful, separating the real problems with the way Dr. Tol encourages dubious and more than dubious entities (GWPF in particular) to exploit his work from what he states his understanding to be. However, he lets his continuing jittering dislike of Cook and Nuccitelli to color his understanding of what are on the whole uncontroversial conclusions about how many scientists who have rigorouly studied the matter agree on the basic science and evidence involved.
I don't think these comments appear on your internet blog.