There could not be more misleading work on the planet than what they've been doing. What they're saying is that the impact of 7 degrees of warming is going to be trivial, too small to measure. Whereas Climate Scientists say anything above 5 degrees, you're talking absolute catastrophe and possible extinction. You don't need to guess who politicians have been listening to... So neoclassical economists for the survival of humanity, must be removed for an economic policy on climate change. They're assuming that climate change won't change the climate. Pardon me, I'm going to use an Australian term here. Bull####. Our society is in peril, courtesy of their work. If that happens, temperatures on average in the UK will fall by 5-8 degrees and by 3-5 degrees across Europe. It's quite likely we'll have freezing winters in the UK, which will destroy UK agriculture. They start with a framing that effectively equates climate to weather. That's why they're so incredibly dangerous. Schelling said that there's no indication that new kinds of climate will result from the rise in global temperature. Some will shift, some more and less widespread. And here's an attempt at eloquence by an economist. The variation in climate is so great across space, from desert to pine forest to rainforest, From the wide variation in Dakotas to the narrow band of San Francisco. From permafrost to fog, changes over time will still be unremarkable compared with variations across space. And that's the mindset economists have developed. That's the way they treat climate change. That's why they're so incredibly dangerous. They treat variation across time as being the same as variation across space. And then use what we have data on, which is variation across space, to predict what's going to happen across time. There could not be more misleading work on the planet than what they've been doing. Because as soon as you say that what we can see across space tells us what we'll see across time, there's nothing to worry about. That's the orientation governments, unfortunately, have been taking, because economists are the people they listen to. Now this isn't just academic papers. This also turns up in the IPCC. This is the 2014 report. But I can find very similar phrasing from the 2022 report. For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small. Relative to impact of other drivers. Now one combination of statements you're required to have in any IPCC declaration is the evidence and the level of agreement. Medium evidence, high agreement amongst the economists on the IPCC. Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, TikTok. All those things are going to be more important than climate change. In other words, it's a second or third order issue at best. That's the framing that economists have developed. Now the problem is, this has all come out of framing climate change as being no different to change variation of climate across geography. There's about, only about 40 papers. This is the horrific thing. There's thousands of papers by economists on climate change.

Most

talk about what they call the social cost of carbon. what they call the total cost of carbon, there's less than 50 papers. And this is a summary in 2022, now published in a refereed journal, which shows you how high the standards are in economics, by Richard Toll. And that's showing all the data points of these 39 studies at the time he wrote, of predictions of a combination of temperature rise, which is on the Horizontal scale and improvement, notice that, or damage the GDP on the vertical. Now none of those temperatures have happened yet, but they've got data for all those points. How have they produced them? They've made them up. Using a range of techniques first one they call a numerative method. They like alliteration in economics, it's as close as they come to poetry. Econometric, Elicitation, and the final is Computable General Equilibrium, which I don't bother with because that takes the inputs from the other three to produce smaller numbers, so it's pretty much irrelevant. Now they're all scientifically invalid. I'd say scientifically illiterate is closer to it. On the enumerative front, they add up the damages or improvements only to industries which are exposed to the weather. This is the first time it was written up in a refereed paper by Nordhaus in 1991. The most sensitive sectors are likely to be those such as agriculture and forestry, and forestry. in which output depends in a significant way upon climatic variables, i. e. the weather. At the other extreme, carefully controlled environments that will not be directly affected by climate change. He uses the example of cardiovascular surgery, which is, you know, okay, that takes place in an operating theatre, carefully curved while one would hope. But he then goes on to say that 3 percent is exposed significantly, 10 percent moderately, and 87 percent is not. of the economy is affected by climate change. 87%. He said, for the bulk of the economy, manufacturing, now notice that mining, we'll come back to that in a moment, utilities, finance, wholesale and retail trade, most service industries and all of government. It is difficult to find major impacts of the changes over the next 50 to 75 years. This is his table. And of course, he found benefits in carbon dioxide fertilisation on farms, so a farm came at a negative to a positive. Look at that, 26 percent manufacturing and mining, and 87 percent in total. Sometime shortly after this, somebody must have tapped him on the shoulder and said, Oh, William, there is open cut mining, but it is exposed to the weather. So the next time he published this, he had underground mining and reduced the figure to 85%. Which fundamentally shows he thinks To be exposed to the climate, you've got to be exposed to the weather. Otherwise, no problem. That is literally how stupid, and that's being polite. How stupid this work is by economists. Now, the econometric stuff, this is where the real crazy comes in. They assume that space and time are equivalent, so you can time travel by, you know, hopping on the tube. They call this the statistical or econometric approach is based on direct estimates using observed variations across space within a single country. They've now become more sophisticated and they cover it across the entire planet. In prices and expenditure to discern the effect of climate, Mendelsohn assumes that the observed variation of economic activity with climate over space holds over time as well. You wonder why we've done nothing about climate change so far. They're using geographical variation as a proxy. And they then linearly extrapolate. This happens quite regularly. Data they find in past events with climate change and GDP over time, they extrapolate that forward across temperatures, which we know are going to trigger fundamental changes in the climate. So here's a paper you'll be seeing of this one shortly, using data from 1960 to 2014, and they then find a numerical relationship between change in temperature up or down and change in GDP growth. And this is again, similar, the dots there are similar to the previous chart by toll, showing the previous point estimates. You can probably just see the slightly grayed area there. That's their prediction. Now they have linearly extrapolated the data from 1960 to 2014,

to 2014,

saying. across a time where they predict an increase in another 3. 2 degree increase in global temperatures. So what they're basically doing, and this sounds ridiculous, but it's true. They're assuming that climate change won't change the climate. No structure will break out of climate change, which is the level of stupidity that has developed in this particular area. Elicitation. Okay, you ask the experts. Which experts do you consult? Economists. This is the most recent survey done, which was done fairly professionally, unlike the other surveys. What these researchers did was, Find the articles published on climate change in the Top 25 economic journals, and then write to all the economists who published those papers saying here's a survey. Please answer it. 2,215 economists who published those papers. 738 replied. About 380 answered this particular question here. Now, they were asked about a trajectory towards seven degrees of warming, two centuries hence. And they were asked to give their median prediction, a 95 percent range and so on. This is the results of that survey, and predicting by 2130 and 2220, 5 and 7 degrees of warming. And they're saying a 10% or 20% fall in future GDP. In other words, GDP in one or two centuries hence will be 10% or 20% lower at 7 degrees of warming than it would have been without global warming at all. Now according to scientists, 5 degrees or more of warming is fundamentally an extinction event. Unfortunately, you don't need to guess who politicians have been listening to when it comes to their seriousness with which they approach climate change. Now what economists are doing as well, they're comparing two hypothetical numbers. They're comparing future GDP with and without climate change. That's not what they normally do. They normally give you a growth rate. Two comparisons of hypotheticals, now GDP in 2220, with and without climate change, 20% fall. You can convert that into a prediction of the fall in the annual rate of economic growth. The formula's quite simple. It's the log of 1 minus the loss, expressed as a fraction, divided by the number of years. You're making the prediction over. So if we take a look at that Howard and Silvan meeting of the 20 percent fall two centuries hence, that's the log of 1 minus 0. 02 divided by 200. That is minus 0. 11 percent fall in the annual rate of economic growth. that is just slightly more than the accuracy with which current GDP change is measured. What they're saying in other words, is that the impact of 7 degrees of warming is going to be trivial, too small to measure. Effectively rounding error in statistics. Whereas climate scientists say that is anything above 5 degrees, you're talking absolute catastrophe and possible extinction. And this is why climate scientists have not been listened to. They're finally waking up to why this has happened. Now how does this stuff get published? And the answer is, The economics of climate change is both about climate change, which is science, and economics, which is supposedly social science. Economists, okay, I can put up with them referring the economic section. I've got no great respect for economists, as you can probably tell. But scientists should have refereed the climate science sections. No, they didn't, of course. We don't have the mechanisms for cross disciplinary refereeing, unfortunately, in academia in general. So the people who refereed these papers knew as little about climate change as the economists who wrote them. And therefore they published nonsense, which any climate scientist would have simply said, forget it. That paper doesn't deserve to get published. I'm sure that if scientists had refereed those sections, not one of those 40 papers would have passed scrutiny. I've read them all. They all make those same stupid assumptions. So what I'm hoping to do is to raise funds and I'm, anybody has any suggestions about how I can do that, please let me know. To try to raise the funds for this. To get scientists to go back and ex post referee those papers and say, Would you have approved this paper for publication? I'm pretty confident of a 100% success rate in rejecting those papers. I'd have to find somebody like Judith Currie to find a climate scientist who would actually pass one of those papers. One of the many crazy things in the literature... economists rave on all the time about comparative advantage, specialising what you're good at, let other people do what they're better at. So you'd think they would use Climate scientist studies of climate. No, no, they've made up their own and they only use temperature. They've had 30 years to include precipitation, let alone other factors in the climate, into their models. They haven't yet done it. This is a paper in 2021 admitting that. So the climate component of those models should also be replaced by stuff written by the specialists, which is scientists, of course, not economists. And the scientists should also produce the damage estimates. The nonsense that they put into their damage functions, made up by economists, was ridiculous compared to what climate scientists would actually predict. So it's too important to leave climate science to the economists. Anybody who's written any of these papers, they should be removed from policy. And I want to show you why. Because politicians, as we know, the first people they turn to are economists. Most politicians have done PPE. None of them, virtually none of them have done chemistry or physics or medicine. So we have a cohort of people making decisions who expect they should be listening to the economists, not knowing the economists haven't got a clue of what they're talking about. And that's why the warning by climate scientists haven't been accepted. This is a very nice man, I quite like him, Kamiar, giving his explanation as to what's going to happen from another 3.2 degrees of global warming. We use data on 174 countries over the last half century. We also conduct a within country study of the US economy, using data at the state level and across 10 economic sect activities. What we find is that climate variations, they lead to costly production volatility and have adverse effects on labor productivity. In the most conservative scenario, the losses associated with climate change is around 7% of global GDP. So given that policy at the national level might have been influenced by previous studies arguing that climate change will lead to losses for hot and poor nations, and that advanced economies will not be affected, or under some scenarios even benefit from higher temperature deviations, We are hoping that our research, which clearly shows that there are negative long run growth effects of climate change affecting all countries, doesn't matter whether a country is rich or poor or hot and cold. We're hoping that these results will change the mindset of policymakers, which believe that climate change will not impact their economies in a meaningful way. It's a bit late to start repairing the damage, isn't it? That's what he thinks he's doing. Of course, he's extending the damage. So why do they do that? Why do economists produce nonsense like this? Well, this is a mathematician now talking about a common assumption in economics of using probability or using distribution across space as an alternative to change through time, which makes the analysis much, much easier. And he said the conditions under which you can do that as a mathematician are incredibly restrictive. And They certainly do not apply to non equilibrium processes, and economic growth is a non equilibrium process. So, the economists make a indiscriminate assumption of ergodicity. They simply don't realize how restricted that is. They just blithely do it all the time, and I've seen this in my lifelong critiques of neoclassical economics in general. That's partly also by design, because their definition of equilibrium ignores space to begin with. Most of their models only have, equilibrium, they don't have any time inside there. If you look at the supply and demand curves, there's no time on either axis. So they're used to leaving time out of their analysis. And they assume equilibria are stable when even their own models have unstable equilibrium. So the models they call dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models today that the Bank of England, for example, uses to try to forecast and control inflation, they're based on a model from 1928, which has an unstable saddle equilibrium. Okay. They simply impose equilibrium where it doesn't apply. Now also I think it's ideology, and that is they, climate change implies constraints on markets, but in their model, markets reach a social equilibrium, and therefore climate change must be solvable by markets, so all we've got to do is adjust the price and we'll be okay. They can't understand climate change, and they are setting us up for drastic damage, and our society is in peril, courtesy of their work, and I want to finish with why we're in peril, and for the best example is what's called the AMOC, the Atlantic Mediurnal Overturning Circulation. In 2008, 3 to 5 degrees extends the level of temperature necessary to trigger the AMOC breakdown. In the 2023 paper, it's 1.1 to 3.8 degrees. Now we've already gone past 1.1., well and truly. So we could be in the range where we're going to trigger the collapse of the AMOC. If that happens. Temperatures on average in the UK will fall by 5-8 degrees and by 3-5 degrees across Europe. The volatility will be higher. It's quite likely we'll have freezing winters in the UK, which will destroy UK agriculture. And there'll be a 10-30% fall in rainfall across Europe and a global potentially 50%-70% fall in the amount of land that can support grain agriculture. And this is the showing those charts from the paper. This is an OECD paper published in 2021. The scientists therefore conclude quite obviously that it would be a catastrophic impact to lose the AMOC. What do economists say? They say that if it slows down a bit, we gain 0.3% and if it shuts down completely, we gain 1 percent of GDP.

percent of GDP.

They have no idea of what they're talking about. So neoclassical economists for the survival of humanity must be removed for an economic policy on climate change. Thank you.