Comments on: An unintimidated academic

By: Andrew Leigh » Blog Archive » T’aint lark playin’ for Yorksha is it?

Andrew Leigh » Blog Archive » T’aint lark playin’ for Yorksha is it? — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:07:33 +0000

[...] into the question of the impact of mobile phone usage on accident rates. More recently, commenter whyisitso on Andrew Norton’s blog asked economist Harry Clarke how he presumed to write about climate [...]

By: Tony Healy

Tony Healy — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:55:47 +0000

Andrew, this is not a fair comparison. Roger Short was expressing a personal opinion, which we’re all free to do.

The complaint by Buchanan and his university was not that they would be attacked for expressing personal opinions. It was that Hockey had attacked the honesty and professional standing of researchers in an attempt to rebut research findings he didn’t like.

That’s quite a different issue. I will add more on this in your other thread.

By: Spiros

Spiros — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:30:49 +0000

Harry, there’s no point trying to convince this lot about AGW. You’d have more success telling Mohammed Al Fayed that the car crash that killed his son and Princess Diana was an accident.

If they don’t want to believe it, then they won’t believe it. No amount of evidence will change their minds. Best to leave them muttering to themselves.

By: Ken Lovell

Ken Lovell — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:16:28 +0000

If this was part of an obstetrics lecture, it’s a more eclectic field than I had ever imagined.

By: hc

hc — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:22:25 +0000

whyisitso, I’ve used up too many pixels on this foolish debate already. I give up - the time to discuss whether or not climate change is a serious issue has finished.

In my view the prospects of human-caused climate change are the most serious threat humankind has ever faced.

The costs of dealing with this problem are a few percentage points shaved off GDP. If I am wrong this amount of growth will be lost.

By: whyisitso

whyisitso — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 10:17:45 +0000

There are enough reputable climatologists who have severe doubts about “anthropogenic” climate change and who are keeping an open mind about whether the apparent current climate warming is just another natural recurring pattern. It’s only the non-climatologists who are saying the debate is over.

By: hc

hc — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 07:14:21 +0000

whyisitso, I don’t think that climatologists are the only people concerned with or working in the field of climate change. You don’t have to be a climatologist to be concerned.

Indeed the climatology is, in a sense, the easy part of the global warming debate - almost all climatologists agree that there is a very severe problem. Listening to a recent talk by Ken Arrow (who started off studying climate) I was suprised to find that his teachers in the mid-1940s firmly argued that greenhouse gas emissions would cause global warming.

But given that there is a problem a substantial issue is how you deal with it.

By: whyisitso

whyisitso — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 05:23:51 +0000

“I’ve taught students about climate change aned have written several papers on climate change - the earliest in 1991. My work is cited by leading economists in the area such as Robert Pindyck.”

OK Harry. I don’t doubt that for a layman you are well informed. But your comment brings to mind the wonderful (repeated) interview by Margaret Throsby yesterday with Michael Parkinson.

Parkinson relates the story of his ageing father’s comment about his own (ie Michael’s) fame and achievements - “Aye Lud. But t’aint lark playin’ for Yorksha is it?”

Tain’t like you’re a climatologist, is it Harry?

By: hc

hc — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 04:31:15 +0000

Partly fair comment whyisitso. I’ve taught students about climate change aned have written several papers on climate change - the earliest in 1991. My work is cited by leading economists in the area such as Robert Pindyck. I am trying not to ‘blow my own trumpet’ but need to defend myself against your charge of hypocrisy.

By the way I argue the case for climate change mitigation by arguing that the costs of dealing with the issue are much smaller than the possible costs of not dealing with it. Not by arguing that Peter Costello is a ‘bloody idiot’.

I am not sure you are not being a bit agist Andrew. There are plenty of older academics and ex academics around the place (Max Corden and, as I heard last week, Paul Samuelson and Ken Arrow) who seem to be pretty sharp. Not that I am seriously worried about my own grey hair and diminishing faculties!

By: whyisitso

whyisitso — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 02:36:06 +0000

Interesting comment from you Harry. For one who speaks so vehemently on climate change on his own blog I wonder what expertise other than your undoubted economic qualifications you bring to this debate.