I find it interesting to see how robust models that are used in policymaking are. Not 'robust' in the sense of 'skill', but 'robust' in the sense that they seem to survive, despite their lack of it. It's always the same characters and organisations behind them.
It is as if the individuals and organisations have been appointed to produce the models on which the policymaking will depend, rather than the most skilful model emerging after some kind of scientific process -- which is of course the conceit.
The presuppositions are numerous. But the most troubling is the fact that it might be the case that no model has any skill, and that models which appear to have skill, merely accidently produce results which closely match reality.
Another problem is the faith that modellers have in models. It's self-selecting. Nobody who believes that modelling is probably futile and certainly misleading is going to spend their time constructing models, much less pitch their powers of prognostication to politicians.
The saying has it that "all models are wrong, but some are useful". I don't agree. If you can't work out which models are useful and for what, then models are dangerously misleading. Especially if models are demanded, by politicians, to meet political needs.
Models assume, by their nature, absurdly stupid people. This is then turned into policy, which seeks to control the population of extremely stupid people by treating them as such. Garbage in, garbage out. Presuppositions in, presuppositions out. Models beg the question.
Models have a history of failure, now in its sixth decade.
They have political utility, but they seem to get everything wrong. Or perhaps we just don't hear so much about the successes.
They seem like crystal ballocks to me.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What consequences will James Murray and his clients face for being wrong?
Since he raises the subject of liability, and as there isn't an estimate of the cost which comes in at less than a £trillion, what is he prepared to forfeit?
Nobody is going to look at a chart in the same way again...
"You mean, *this* is the basis on which you want me to give up my car, pay tens of £thousands for retrofitting my home, and make my whole family go vegan?!"
In an odd way, perhaps we will have SAGE and Imperial to thank for equipping the public debate with the terms of engagement -- things which journalists, broadcasters and politicians would have run a mile from.
An example. The report finds that "retrofitting the home requires a significant upfront cost estimated at up to £15,000". This won't make a home 'net zero'.
How many homeowners and/or landlords are going to have £15K lying around between now and when? Nobody's saving!
To make a home truly #Netzero WRT heating will cost multiples of £15K.
The consumer does the quick calculation. How many years will it take to pay back the £15K?
Back-of-an-envelope: 30 years.
That doesn't sound like a good deal. And it's not going to be the only expense.
Democracy never troubled Ed Miliband, who was parachuted from the backroom of the Treasury into the safe seat of Doncaster North. Which is to say FUCK YOU to the people of Doncaster, from the people of Primrose Hill.
It was the same for Ed's championing of climate change...
He never campaigned. He never canvassed. He never contested. He never had to win a debate. He knew that what he know was right, and that what was right must be imposed on people.