- M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1992
- Ph.D. Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1997
Amber Rudd, secretary of state for the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), continues to come under fire this week as it’s revealed that she failed to disclose...
The Sussex University economist has aligned himself with climate denial and his tweets are highly entertaining - shame this book is so damn conventional.
Professor Richard Tol has authored a ruthlessly conventional £57 textbook on the economics of climate change. I took the hit and skimmed the book so you don't have to.
Climate Economics presents a concise yet comprehensive treatment of neoclassical environmental economics with reference to the problem of climate change and climate change mitigation.
This is a guest post by Cindy Baxter.
They were all there. A veritable octopus of conflicting climate denial arguments, from “it’s not happening” to “satellite data says it’s all the forests’ fault” to “it’s the sun,” “we can adapt” - and everything in between.
This small gathering of climate science deniers, including Conservative MP and member of the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Climate change, oilman Peter Lilley, and Conservative MP for Monmouth, David Davies, met in a small room buried on the third floor of the UK’s House of Commons in London last week.
They were there to hear Professor Richard Tol, advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation and IPCC Working Group II economics chapter Coordinating Lead Author.
For someone who claims he’s not a climate denier, Tol certainly managed to belt out a number of the classic denier arguments in the next two hours.
One of the most consistent of all the attacks from climate science sceptics and deniers is the one which tries to convince the public that expert scientists are divided on the causes of climate change.
Those attacks have come from ideologically motivated think tanks and the fossil fuel industry, often working together. Only last week, the Wall Street Journal published a polemic to try and mislead the public that a consensus does not exist.
In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute was developing a campaign with the explicit aim of convincing the public that “uncertainties” existed in the science of climate change and its causes.
In 2002, Republican pollster Frank Luntz wrote that: “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.”
Several studies have surveyed the views of climate science experts or the scientific literature and have come to the same conclusions — the number of studies and the number of scientists who reject the fact that humans are causing climate change remains vanishingly small.
The latest and most high profile study to survey the scientific literature was led by John Cook, of the University of Queensland’s Global Change Institute and founder of the Skeptical Science website, and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in May 2013.
Cook et al analysed close to 12,000 global warming studies from 1991 to 2011 to see how many accepted or rejected the fact that human activities are causing climate change. The researchers also asked scientists themselves to look at their own papers and confirm whether they endorsed the scientific consensus.
The central finding, reported widely and even Tweeted by Barack Obama’s campaign team, was that 97 percent of the scientific papers on climate change found that humans were causing it.
Since that study was published, Professor Richard Tol, an economist from the University of Sussex, has been planning to attack Cook’s paper.
Updated to correct source of research
Bjorn Lomborg, the Disingenuous Environmentalist is at it again, taking advantage of the delusionist tendencies of the Washington Post’s opinion page editors to argue that climate change is no worries and that coal is the key to our long-term health and prosperity.
Lomborg bases this particular example of economics fiction (a less rigorous form of science fiction) on the work of the economist Richard Tol, whose previous machinations have made it obvious that he is happy to take Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus Center funding and feed back the conclusions Lomborg would like.
The most successful Libertarian politician in Canadian history, Globe and Mail columnist Neil Reynolds, has joined the campaign to do nothing about climate change, basing his argument (A Net-Benefit Greenhouse Gas Plan - Less is Really More) not on the work of anyone who actually studies climate science, but rather on two economists with a track record of trying to discourage action.
Most famous of these is Bjorn Lomborg, the Disingenuous Environmentalist and director of a Danish think tank that specialilzes in understating the costs of climate change and overestimating the costs of taking preventative action.
In the run-up to the United Nations meeting scheduled for his hometown in December, Lomborg’s Copenhagen Concensus Center has commissioned 21 reports “to examine the costs and
benefits of different solutions to global warming.” The most recent result, a paper by the economist Richard Tol (inset), gives a good indication of how agenda-driven and, in some regards, surprisingly unprofessional, those papers might be.
Economists no longer debate the realities of anthropomorphic climate change–that's so 1993!
Instead, they squabble over how much we should be spending today to lessen the sting of the much bigger invoices that will inevitably come due tomorrow, should we insist on carrying on with all this fossil-fuel nonsense.
Note: see our welcome to DeSmog's latest writer James Glave - this is his first post so be gentle!
We nearly missed the second in the National Post series on The Deniers, a cherry-picking exercise in which the libertarian Larry Solomon tries to suggest that there are credible scientists standing up against the global scientific consensus that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and is urgently in need of attention.
Solomon's latest example of an admirable denier is Dr. Richard Tol (whose photo, inset, was taken from Tol's own website). It turns out that Tol has quibbled with the way the scientific and political community measure and predict the effects of climate change, as in this, his most recent scientific article. But, oddly enough, in their campaign of climate change denial, Solomon and the National Post neglect to include Tol's own final position:
This conclusion, however, does not necessarily undermine the ethical and political economic reasons for supporting international collective action on climate change.