Debunking the Optimal Global Temperature for GDP Growth
Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com
Climate Alarmists and Global GDP
A set of climate alarmists have claimed that if we continue on our current trajectory, global GDP will be 23 percent lower. This claim, which I found to be absurd, was based on a study that gave equal weight to all countries, regardless of their economic size or influence. The authors attempted to justify this approach, but it was clear to me that they were manipulating the data to fit their predetermined conclusions.
Critiquing the Nature Article
Today, I am delighted to share a comprehensive critique of the article published in Nature. The critique, titled "Global Non-Linear Effect of Temperature on Economic Production: Comment on Burke, Hsiang, and Miguel," is authored by David Barker.
Flaws in the Original Study
Barker argues that the original study's analysis is superficial and misleading. The authors used data with known issues that can lead to inaccurate regression results, without making necessary adjustments or acknowledging these issues. They estimated parameters of a quadratic curve relating temperature to growth and cherry-picked countries to include in a chart that seemed to confirm the shape of this curve. This curve was then used to project growth rates into the distant future using temperature scenarios that a more recent comment in Nature described as either “extremely unlikely” or “unlikely”.
More on the Original Study
The original study used annual data from 166 countries from 1961 to 2010 on temperature and economic growth. Each country was assigned a single average temperature for each year. The headline result of a 23 percent reduction in GDP was derived from taking each country’s projected GDP per capita with and without climate change, then taking the weighted average by population, and then taking the percentage difference between the weighted sum with and without climate change.
Debunking the Original Study
Barker points out that if you remove Greenland and regions of the Sahara and Central Africa from the analysis, the entire thesis of the original study falls apart. He also comments on the use of dummy variables and notes that if the analysis started one year earlier, the thesis also falls apart.
Questioning the Concept of Optimal Temperature
I firmly believe that there is no such thing as an optimal global temperature. Such a belief ignores technological advances that can mitigate climate impacts. At best, an optimal temperature is unknowable and constantly changing. It's absurd to think that we could or should aim for an optimal temperature, even if it existed.
Forcing the Data to Meet the Non-Science
It's clear that the authors of the original study had an agenda and manipulated the data to produce the desired result. They forced the data not to meet the science, but to meet a belief in non-science. At best, they now look like a group of incompetent scientists, and at worst a group of outright liars.
Continuing Energy Madness
The lie of the day is from the EPA: Carbon capture will pay for itself (thanks to IRA subsidies). No, it won’t even with subsidies. Expect blackouts and a higher price for electricity.
Closing Thoughts
The debate around optimal global temperatures and their impact on GDP growth is complex and fraught with biases and manipulations. It's crucial to approach such studies with a critical eye and question the underlying assumptions and methodologies. What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you agree with the critique of the original study? Share this article with your friends and join the conversation. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.
