THE DESTRUCTION OF COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND THE POLITICISATION OF SCIENCE

This series of blogs reflecting disparate climate change opinion commenced on the 13th April 2013 where I related my early experiences in the politicisation of science. In particular, the predictions by one Paul Ehrlich in the 1970's that the earth will cool and food supply will be reduced. Scientific opinion and Malthusian economics rolled into one. Neither proved true.

And neither have the more recent hyperventilations on so-called anthropogenic warming which is leading to significant economic hardships in Australia and flawed energy policy in Germany and other countries. In these countries, destruction of comparative advantage is the result. My most recent post on this issue described what is likely to happen given the energy revolution underway in the United States.

Very credible scientists from the United States, Russia, and Taiwan now offer different views on climate change, and appear to be of the view that the earth is heading for a cooling period.

Abdussamatov from the Russian Academy of Sciences believes that "another cool period was due and would come about regardless of whether industrialised countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions". "Mars has global warming....without the participation of Martians". He predicts a new "little Ice Age" will start this year or next"(On earth).

Hill at the US National Solar Observatory said "three different analyses of the sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin". From the Academia Sinica in Taiwan, where there are concerns about cooling as a result of Chinese emissions, Hsu states " the pause in warmingof the past decade is more likely to be explained by natural variability".

So there you have it: From the US: "the connections between solar activity and climate change are still very poorly understood"; from Taiwan: "the problem is the present state of climate models is still too simplistic for nature", and from Russia "a deep freeze that would last for the rest of the century".

(For interested readers, please refer to Graham Lloyds' column, Weekend Australian May 4-5 2013 and the original references).

From an investors' perspective, the gaming of misguided public policy could reap huge rewards. The losers are the households, small businesses, and larger company shareholders who all have to pay the costs associated with politicised public policy.