From the inbox comes evidence that "elite economic experts" (smacks of elitism) consider global warming a problem and think incentives might matter:
Most expert economists agree: reducing our greenhouse gas emissions can help avoid a major economic malfunction. Those are the findings of a survey conducted by the Institute for Policy Integrity, released [yesterday] morning in a report called Economists and Climate Change: Consensus and Open Questions.
Malfunction?
Over 84% of the top economic experts responding to the poll said that the effects of global warming will create significant risks to important sectors of the United States and global economies. There was near unanimity—98%—that a price on carbon will increase incentives for efficiency and innovation.
Insert snide SuperFreakonomics remark here (i.e., snark). Such as: "But, what about the evidence that doctors don't wash their hands?"
The next paragraph sets me off a bit:
The survey was sent to 289 economists who published at least one article regarding climate change in the top twenty-five economic journals over the last fifteen years—144 of those responded. By limiting the sample to the economists with the most expertise on climate change, the survey was able to achieve a high response rate, and reduce the risk of error. ...
I have a quibble with the population of the survey, and I'll try to present it as snarkily as possible. If the survey was only sent to economists who published at least one article in a non top-25 journal, say, Land Economics, Environmental and Resource Economics or Resource and Energy Economics over the past 15 years it would increase the risk of error? Why, because economists who study climate change and can't crack the top-25 are jackasses? And are they less likely to respond to the survey? Huh?*
I would have rephrased that sentence to something like this:
By limiting the sample to the economists with the most expertise on climate change, the survey was able to avoid the ignorance of economists who have not studied climate change.
The press kit puts it this way:
If this survey were to be distributed among the thousands of American economists, results would likely be skewed by responder bias—only those with the strongest opinions would answer. By only inviting those with expertise on climate change, and thanks to the high response rate, results are more statistically valid and less sensitive to error.
Responder bias? Response bias results if the sample does not look like the population for some observable reason. For example, the sample might be more wealthy (i.e., elite) than the more general economist population. You can weight a response biased sample to make it more representative.
I think the surveyors are more worried about sample selection bias which results when those with the strongest opinions are more likely to respond. Sample selection bias is more difficult to detect since the bias is on an unobservable variable. I'm doubting if economists who publish in a sub-25 journal have stronger opinions than others. The statements above imply that "elite economic experts" are more objective than the jackasses who can't crack the top tier of journals.
Why not send it to economists who have published a climate change paper in any economics journal? My guess is that the surveyors lacked the time and money to put together a broader sample. Why not say so? To suggest that the non-elite are biased is ... well, biased.
The little guys who didn't get the survey have their feelings hurt.
*Note: I'm not personally offended since I don't have a climate change paper in any economics journal unless you define "climate change article" very broadly.
Recent Comments