Usted no se lo cree

Texto de referencia: Perfil de los negacionistas del cambio climático (5): Richard S.J. Tol, el duendes

1. Martin L. Weitzman (1998) – Why the Far-Distant Future Should Be Discounted at Its Lowest Possible Rate – Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36:201–08 – 11/08/1998 – Department of Economics, Harvard University – http://economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/61_why_far-distant_future.pdf
   “There is a ‘‘problem’’ with discounting the distant-future payoffs of projects or activities, which has been widely noted and commented upon. To think about the distant future in terms of standard discounting is to have an uneasy intuitive feeling that something is wrong, somewhere.”
2. Marc D. Davidson (2014) – Zero discounting can compensate future generations for climate damage – Ecological Economics 105:40–47 doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.018 – Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, and Research group Philosophy and Public Affairs, University of Amsterdam
   “Unfortunately, economists have to date been unable to reconcile moral intuitions with economic theory.”
3. John Cook (2014) – The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial – The Huffington Post, 30/04/2014 – http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cook/the-quantum-theory-of-climate-denial_b_5229539.html
   “The ultimate consequence of the quantum theory of climate denial is that climate denial has no internal consistency. This is why climate denial can’t provide a coherent explanation for the full body of evidence describing what’s happening to our climate. They lurch from denying that global warming is happening to blaming the (nonexistent) global warming on some natural cause to claiming that (nonexistent, non-human-caused) global warming doesn’t matter because, well, chillax dude!”
4. Richard S.J. Tol (2009) – The Economic Effects of Climate Change – The Journal of Economic Perspectives 23:29–51 – Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin + Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Institute for Environmental Studies and the Department of Spatial Economics, both at Vrije Universiteit – http://gesd.free.fr/tol2009.pdf
   “Fourth, estimates of the economic effects of greenhouse gas emissions have become less pessimistic over time. For the studies listed here, the estimates become less negative by 0.23 percent of GDP per year in which the study was done (with a standard deviation of 0.10 percent per year). There are several reasons for this change. Projections of future emissions and future climate change have become less severe over time—even though the public discourse has become shriller.”
5. Richard S.J. Tol (2013) – Targets for global climate policy: An overview – Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 5:911–928 doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2013.01.001 – Department of Economics, University of Sussex + Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit + Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit – https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=wps37-2012-tol.pdf&site=24
   “A survey of the economic impact of climate change and the marginal damage costs shows that carbon dioxide emissions are a negative externality. The estimated Pigou tax and its growth rate are too low to justify the climate policy targets set by political leaders. A lower discount rate or greater concern for the global distribution of income would justify more stringent climate policy, but would imply an overhaul of other public policies. Catastrophic risk justifies more stringent climate policy, but only to a limited extent.”
6. Douglas Arent and Richard S.J. Tol (2014) – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability – Chap. 10: Key Economic Sectors and Services – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) WGII AR5 – http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap10_FGDall.pdf
   “Estimates agree on the size of the impact (small relative to economic growth) but disagree on the sign (Figure 10-1). Climate change may be beneficial for moderate climate change but turn negative for greater warming. Impacts worsen for larger warming, and estimates diverge. The new estimates have slightly widened the uncertainty about the economic impacts of climate.”
7. Bob Ward (2014) – Errors in estimates of the aggregate economic impacts of climate change – Grantham Research Institute, London School of Economics, 02/04/2014 – http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/Media/Commentary/2014/March/Errors-in-estimates-of-the-aggregate-economic-impacts-of-climate-change.aspx
   “Furthermore, the version of Chapter 10 (PDF) that has been published on the IPCC’s website is the draft that was distributed to governments in October 2013, and still contains at least three erroneous data points in Table 10.B.1 and Figure 10-1. The text of Section 10.9.2 remains a highly misleading description of the data: “Estimates agree on the size of the impact (small relative to economic growth) but disagree on the sign”. I will continue my efforts to have the errors in Professor Tol’s work corrected, as a service to researchers, policy-makers and the public.”
8. Reuters (2014) – IPCC author brands upcoming climate report ‘alarmist’ – The Guardian, 28/03/2014 – http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/27/ipcc-author-climate-report-alarmist
   “One of the 70 authors of a draft UN report on climate change said he had pulled out of the writing team because it was ‘alarmist» about the ‘threat. Richard Tol told Reuters he disagreed with some findings of the summary to be issued in Japan on 31 March. The drafts became too alarmist, the Dutch professor of economics at Sussex University in England said by telephone from Yokohama, Japan, where governments and scientists are meeting to edit and approve the report. But he acknowledged some other authors ‘strongly disagree with me’.”
9. Ben Spencer (2014) – UK professor refuses to put his name to ‘apocalyptic’ UN climate change survey that he claims is exaggerating the effects – Mail Online, 26/03/2014 – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2589424/UK-professor-refuses-apocalyptic-UN-climate-change-survey.html
   “A climate scientist has accused the United Nations of being too alarmist over global warming – and demanded his name be removed from a crucial new report. Professor Richard Tol, an economist at the University of Sussex, said fellow UN academics were exaggerating climate change and comparing it to the ‘apocalypse’.”
10. David Cromwell and David Edwards – The Neverending ‘Wakeup Call’ – Media Lens,  02/04/2014 – http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=761:the-neverending-wakeup-call
    “In the broadcast and print media coverage that followed the publication of the IPCC report, Tol was a central figure featured in one report after another. Like bees swarming around a honeypot, the major broadcasters zoomed in on Tol, so enabling the news media to frame the IPCC report as arguably ‘alarmist’. BBC News at Ten was a prime perpetrator, with presenter Huw Edwards introducing the story thus: …”
11. Richard S.J. Tol (2014) – The Ward Effect – Occasional thoughts on all sorts, 04/03/2014 – Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University + Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Univresiteit + Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Carnegie Mellon University – http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-ward-effect.html
    “Nick Stern’s attack dog PR person, Bob Ward, has reached a new level of trolling. He seems to have taking it on himself to write to every editor of every journal I have ever published in, complaining about imaginary errors.”
12. Frank Ackerman – The Tol controversy: Beyond the bounds of acceptable debate – http://frankackerman.com/tol-controversy/
    “The article first appeared as a Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) working paper.  Tol sent numerous e-mails and letters to SEI – and to the Vice-Chancellor of Stockholm University, the Swedish Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Swedish Minister of Environment, and the Minister of Education – demanding that SEI withdraw or rewrite the working paper, publish his reply, and apologize to him … Tol e-mail to Synapse Energy Economics, my new employer, accusing me of libel … Tol e-mails to Routledge asking to review a book of mine they are publishing, and alleging that any mention of the Ackerman-Munitz article constitutes libel.”
13. Johan Kuylenstierna and Johan Rockström – Statement from SEI [Stockholm Environment Institute] leadership – Executive Director, Stockholm Environment Institute; Director, Stockholm Resilience Center + Former Executive Director, Stockholm Environment Institute – http://frankackerman.com/Tol/SEI_Statement.pdf
    “We have great respect for Frank Ackerman and his research … he published many important and valuable studies while at SEI, including the peer-reviewed Ackerman-Munitz article which has come under relentless and undeserved attack from Richard Tol. Professor Tol’s repeated, groundless attacks on this article, and on SEI for its association with the article, have violated the norms of civility and scholarly debate. We urge Professor Tol to stop attacking the motivations and reputations of others, and to return to the academic community that accepts disagreement and engages in substantive debate.”
14. Referencia pendiente
15. Bruce Biewald – Letter – Synapse Energy Economics – CEO, Synapse Energy Economics – http://frankackerman.com/Tol/Synapse_Statement.pdf
    “Synapse Energy Economics is delighted that Dr. Frank Ackerman has joined our staff, and is proud to advertise his research accomplishments and publications – including his peer-reviewed article discussing the FUND model, which Richard Tol has attacked. In an e-mail to me, Professor Tol made the absurd and unsubstantiated suggestion that the article somehow constitutes libel. He urged me to remind my employees about libel law; I urge him to consider the damage that could be done to his reputation by becoming known for false accusations of libel.”
16. Richard S.J. Tol (2014) – Correction and Update: The Economic Effects of Climate Change – The Journal of Economic Perspectives 28:221-226 doi:10.1257/jep.28.2.221 – Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin + Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Institute for Environmental Studies and the Department of Spatial Economics, both at Vrije Universiteit – http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.28.2.221
    “Gremlins intervened in the preparation of my paper … First, unlike the original curve (Tol 2009, Figure 1) in which there were net benefits of climate change associated with warming below about 2°C, in the corrected and updated curve (Figure 2), impacts are always negative, at least in expectation.”
17. Duendes – Wikipedia, 03/06/2014 – http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duende
    “Los duendes son unas criaturas humanoides pequeñas y populares que viven en la fantasía; se encuentran presentes en el folclore de muchas culturas. La etimología de su nombre proviene de la expresión «duende casa» o «dueño de casa», por el carácter entrometido de los duendes al «apoderarse» de los hogares y encantarlos,[ref] o bien del árabe «duar de la casa», («que habita, habitante»). [ref]”
18. Paul A.T. Higgins (2009) – Carbon cycle amplification: how optimistic assumptions cause persistent underestimates of potential climate damages and mitigation needs – Climatic Change 95:363-368 doi:10.1007/s10584-00 – American Meteorological Society
    “Biological systems constitute a critical, but sometimes overlooked, component of the climate system because they influence key physical characteristics of the land surface and atmosphere …Unfortunately, it’s difficult to include these feedbacks accurately in climate projections because future responses of vegetation are hard to constrain using past observations and field experiments.”
19. Anil Markandya and Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (2008) – Global Warming. Copenhagen Consensus 2008 Perspective Paper – Department of Economics, University of Bath –
    “First, a short time period analysis is misleading when the costs and benefits are linked over several periods. Second there can be a value to undertaking more emissions reductions today when future options are limited and when future knowledge will reveal information that may make it attractive to keep more options open in the future. ”
20. Franck Ackerman and Charles Munitz (2011) – Climate damages in the FUND model: A disaggregated analysis – Ecological Economics 77:219–224 doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.03.005 – Stockholm Environment Institute-US Center, Tufts University; Solar Software – http://frankackerman.com/publications/climatechange/Ackerman_Munitz_Ecological_Economics_2012.pdf
    “We identify flaws in FUND’s equations, and find that FUND relies on outdated research that overestimates agricultural benefits from climate change … A flaw in FUND’s optimum temperature equation needs to be fixed, to prevent the risk of division by zero; and the quadratic shape of that equation is inconsistent with recent research on temperature and yields.”
21. Richard S.J. Tol (2014) – A new contribution to the consensus debate – Occasional thoughts on all sorts, 04/05/2014 – Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University + Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Univresiteit + Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Carnegie Mellon University – http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/the-ward-effect.html
    “Someone has posted a response to my comment on Cook’s 97% consensus paper. The response has caused some hilarity, both among those who think that John Cook invented sliced bread and among those who understand what is going on. The response is anonymous. Let’s refer to its author as Frank Ackerman Jr, who does not work at Tufts University. Junior is unrelated to Frank Ackerman. They just have a name in common, and neither is affiliated to Tufts … Junior thus made an error and blamed it on me.”
22. William D. Nordhaus (2012) – Integrated Economic and Climate Modeling – Keynote Address, 19th Annual Conference of EAERE – Yale University – Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) – http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/Prague_June2012_v4_color.pdf
    “FUND model: Damage estimates are unreliable because of model error in which a variable is potentially divided by zero. [ref]; Estimates in US Working Group for SCC are probably incorrectly calculated for FUND model.”
23. William Nordhaus with Paul Sztorc (2013) – DICE 2013R: Introduction and User’s Manual – Yale University – http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/documents/DICE_Manual_103113r2.pdf
    “I will explore one error in depth because it is so subtle that it was found only after an intensive examination. The FUND model is one of the leading models used by researchers and governments to understand the economics of global warming. It has been used to calculate the social cost of carbon for the U.S., which calculation affects tens of billions of dollars of regulations. The problem with the FUND model arose because of a formula for one of the components of the damage function in an early version (since corrected).” (p. 52)
24. Jeroen P van der Sluijs et al (2008) – Exploring the quality of evidence for complex and contested policy decisions – Environmental Research Letters 3:024008 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024008 Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation, Utrecht University + Centre d’Economie et d’Ethique pour l’Environnement et le Développement, Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines – http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/3/2/024008/pdf/erl8_2_024008.pdf
    “In this letter, we present results from the application of the guidance to controversies on the risks of ambient particulate matter. The active deliberation on uncertainty in the policy–advisory setting brings about a joint learning process for advisors and policy makers, which leads to a deeper understanding and increased awareness of the phenomenon of uncertainty and its policy implications.”
25. Adam Corner (2014) – Who cares about climate change consensus? – The Guardian, 19/06/2014 – http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/behavioural-insights/climate-change-consensus-who-cares
    “Until the issue resonates with the hopes and aspirations of more than just a narrow band of campaigners and sceptics, pointing to a row of nodding scientists and expecting this to catalyse public concern is not going to get us far – no matter what the ‘magic number’ attached to the consensus is.”
26. Frank Luntz (2002) – Straight Talk: Frank Luntz Memorandum to Bush White House – The Luntz Research Companies 2002 – http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf
    “Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming with the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.”
27. Anthony Leiserowitz et al (2014) – What’s In a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change – Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University – http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/sites/default/files/reports/Global%20Warming_Climate%20Change_Report_May_2014.pdf – 6 authors
    “The two terms activate different sets of beliefs, feelings, and behaviors, as well as different degrees of urgency about the need to respond. We found that the term global warming is associated with greater public understanding, emotional engagement, and support for personal and national action than the term climate change.”
28. John Cook et al (2013) – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature – Environmental Research Letters 8 024024 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 – Global Change Institute, University of Queensland + Skeptical Science + School of Psychology, University of Western Australia – http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf – 9 authors
    “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts … Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”
29. John Cook (2014) – Skeptical Science consensus paper voted ERL’s best article of 2013 – Skeptical Science, 21/04/2014 – http://skepticalscience.com/docs/ERL_cert_Cook_et_al.pdf
    “Environmental Research Letters (ERL) have just announced that our paper, Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, has been voted by the ERL editorial board as the best ERL article of 2013. This award came with a prize of $500 (which we’ll use to pay the journal fees of future peer-reviewed papers by the Skeptical Science team).”
30. Dana Nuccitelli (2014) – Richard Tol accidentally confirms the 97% global warming consensus – Skeptical Science, 04/06/2014 – http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus.html
    “One might wonder how Tol’s critique made it through the peer-review process with so many serious flaws. It took five tries, as the paper was first rejected four times by three other journals. He received some harsh but fair criticism from the Environmental Research Letters reviewers, who listed 24 problems and ways the paper could be improved. When I asked Tol about these critiques, he told me, «I incorporated all comments by ERL that hold water.» However, a side-by-side comparison reveals that Tol’s Energy Policy paper still contains nearly all of the shortcomings identified by the Environmental Research Letters reviewers, plus some new ones. Our team’s critique of Tol’s paper identified several of the same problems as the Environmental Research Letters reviewers and many more – some they didn’t catch and some that Tol added to the Energy Policy version – again, 24 in total.”
31. Richard S.J. Tol (2014) – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis – Energy Policy doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045 – Department of the Economics, Jubilee Building, University of Sussex + Institute for Environmental Studies + Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit + Tinbergen Institute
    “Climate policy will not succeed unless it has broad societal support, at levels comparable to other public policies such as universal education or old-age support. Well-publicized but faulty analyses like the one by Cook et al. only help to further polarize the climate debate.”
32. John Cook et al (2014) – 24 Critical Errors in Tol (2014) – Skeptical Science, 06/06/2014 – Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland + Skeptical Science + School of Psychology, University of Western Australia – http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/24_errors.pdf?f=24errors – 10 authors
    “1. Flawed attempt to recalculate consensus; 2. Mischaracterizes key result of C13; 3. Neglects scholarly literature on consensus; 4. Cites paper that misrepresents C13; 5. Misrepresents stolen, private correspondence about training period; 6. Conflates literature analysis with a survey of human subjects; 7. Misrepresents release of data required to replicate C13; 8. Conflates ‘climate change’ and ‘global climate change’ research; 9. Fails to substantiate claims of bias; 10. Fails to substantiate assumption regarding Scopus; 11. Fails to substantiate claims of unrepresentativeness; 12. False claims about Web of Science meta-data; 13. Misrepresents private correspondence about ‘déjà-vu’; 14. Neglects to check consensus percentages; 15. Contradicts cited experts on surveys; 16. Cites irrelevant, eliminated abstracts; 17. Cites cherry-picking blog post; 18. Cites report that falsely characterizes C13’s consensus definitions; 19. Incorrectly conflates abstract ratings with self-ratings; 20. Fails to substantiate conclusion; 21. Fails to substantiate claim on implicit endorsements; 22. False dichotomy between composition and endorsement; 23. Irrelevant invocation of attribution research; 24. False claim of polarization.”
33. Roland Littlewood and Chavannes Douyon (1997) – Clinical findings in three cases of zombification – The Lancet 350:1094-1096 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)04449-8 – Departments of Anthropology and Psychiatry, University College, London; Polyclinique Medica, Port-au-Prince, Haiti
    “Haitian medical practitioners regard zombification as the consequence of poisoning; the clergy as the product of sorcery. Zombis are frequently recognised by the local population, and estimates of their number are of the order of up to a thousand new cases per year (L.P. Mars, personal communication).”
34. Philip Munz et al (2009) – When zombies attack!: Mathematical modelling of an outbreak of climate zombie infection – En: J.M. Tchuenche and C. Chiyaka (2009) – Infectious Disease Modelling Research Progress ISBN 978-1-60741-347-9 – School of Mathematics and Statistics, Carleton University – 4 authors
    “In summary, a zombie outbreak is likely to lead to the collapse of civilisation, unless it is dealt with quickly. While aggressive quarantine may contain the epidemic, or a cure may lead to coexistence of humans and zombies, the most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to attack hard and attack often. As seen in the movies, it is imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly, or else we are all in a great deal of trouble.”
35. R.L. Miller (2010) – Attack of the climate zombies! – Climate Progress, 10/09/2010 – Daily Kos – http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/10/climate-zombies-gop-global-warming-deniers/
    “A couple of weeks ago, the Wonk Room had a story: Every GOP NH Senate candidate is a global warming denier … Virtually all Republicans criticize what they call “cap and tax” as too expensive, but how many actually deny the reality of climate change science? How many have been infected…? A lot. A real lot. Be afraid. Be very afraid.”