Did Global Warming Cause the Global Slowdown?
Hot Climates May Create Sluggish Economies
NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO -- New research suggests that higher temperatures can have a damaging effect on the economies of poor countries. The study, by economists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that in years with higher temperatures, poor countries experienced significantly slower economic growth.
Ben Olken, an associate professor of economics at MIT, and his colleagues wanted to examine the temperature connection more closely. They decided that instead of comparing one country to another, they would look within countries. Did a hot year mean slower economic growth? The answer appears to be yes. They found that for poor countries, an increase in annual average temperature by 1 degree centigrade corresponded to a 1.1% drop in per-capita gross domestic product.
It's "a huge effect," Olken says. The difference between a country that's in recession and one that is buzzing along amounts to a 3% shift in GDP. "So, 1 degree explaining a 1.1% shift is a huge effect of temperature."
13 Comments:
NPR. Well, at least they don't have an agenda on this topic. Sounds like this "scientist" already had his conclusion before he started his research.
The obvious retort is that poor countries suffer slow economic growth when it's unusually hot because they can't afford air conditioning.
Correlation ≠ causation, ad nauseum. I didn't go read the paper, but since most of the poorest countries are located in places that are warm/hot already, a 1°C increase wouldn't mean much. This is more spurious "science" designed to push the Glowball Worming agenda of the Marxist tools, such as OwlGore.
Tom, I think you're right about NPR, and the media is destined to report this as causation rather than correlation, and I think the methodology should be looked at closer, but having a theory before looking at the data is the scientific method. It's in disregarding data that doesn't match your theory is where the dishonesty comes into play.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Can you tell exactly what year? Best I can tell is that from 1978 through 2005 the temperature was going straight up. Did our stocks go up from 1982 until 2000? Wouldn't this tell you that people work harder when the A/C is running, dehydrating the air for more comfort?
What is the consensus of interpretation?
Well at the very least the once proud MIT has soiled itself again on the altar of anthropomorphic global climate change with this bit of inanity...
Its only MY observations of poor countries in warm areas but they all seem to have one thing in common, the lack of readily available protein, meat protein...
Can I say this caused the supposed global slowdown?
"What is the consensus of interpretation?"...
Bureaucrats with an agenda?
Those weren't socialist countries by any chance were they?
Did the 1% economic drop purportedly caused by 1 degree warming cause the global economic meltdown? Or was it the Fed 1% interest rates; Freddie and Fannie writing 40% of all the under-prime mortgages; and the CRA rules requiring and encouraging Countrywide et al to make loans to people who were unqualified?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Misterjosh, I agree completely with the theory coming before the research being the scientific method. If you'll note, I said he had his conclusion before he started his research, a very different statement.
Research should test the theory, rather than solely be guided at supporting the theory. Otherwise, it's not science, it's propaganda. Shoot, I can generate observations that support an earth-centered system, a la pre-Galileo... It's in testing the theory that science is done.
I like Robert Miller's post. I bet he graduated with a degree in economics from a good state college. I like his beret too.
Even global warming alarmists only predict a 1 or 2 degree rise in the temperature. I don't think that temperature difference would make any difference.
It is unfortunate that I am going to have to listen to this nonsense for five more years before AGW is proven to be as valid as the overpopulation concerns of the 70's.
Post a Comment
<< Home