Categories
Eco-philo-pol

A Climate Change Reality Check?

Anyone who’s interested in the climate change debate (and I’m still of the opinion that there is a debate [update: this was clearly a bonkers statement since the basic science of climate change was settled decades ago; the debate is on what action to take and how to implement that action, as it’s not going well]) should read this two-part paper published in the World Economics Journal at the end of last year. It’s a critical analysis of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, a document that has arguably done more than any other (save, perhaps for the various IPCC papers) to convince governments of the need to act on global warming. The first part covers the science (written by several climate change experts), and the second covers the economics. Readers of this weblog might be particularly interested in the following excerpt from the critique:

Section 3 is concerned with fundamental issues of scientific conduct and procedure that the Review fails to consider. Professional contributions to the climate change debate very largely take the form of published peer-reviewed articles and studies. It is widely assumed, in particular by governments and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the peer review process provides a guarantee of quality and objectivity. This is not so. We note that the process as applied to climate science has tolerated gross failures in due disclosure and archiving, and that peer review is both too inbred and insufficiently thorough to serve any audit purpose, which we believe is now essential for science studies that are to be used to drive trillion-dollar policies.

I think this observation about peer-review processes in the climate science community probably holds true for many, if not most, scientific communities. I’ve certainly seen evidence of inbreeding and insufficient thoroughness within the small subset of the computer science community with which I’m involved. And, from my (still fairly limited) experience, due disclosure barely gets a look-in. For instance, the frequency with which authors are asked whether they’ve disclosed all their funding sources and correctly cited all their sources is very low in my (still fairly limited) experience.

Categories
Random observations

Scoble writing about Fox News

Yesterday I noticed that Scoble had posted an article about Fox News and the Anna Nicole Smith saga at around the same time as I had. It turns out that he actually scooped me by 15 minutes, and here I was thinking I was original! D’oh!

Categories
Random observations

More books

Karen and I went to Sunnybank to watch Charlotte’s Web today. I was glad to find we weren’t the only adults in the cinema. Not a bad movie at all. Hearing Steve Buscemi do the voice of Templeton the rat was worth it alone. After the movie we had lunch at the impressive Landmark Chinese restuarant which is just outside the shopping complex. It does yum cha every day. It has a very nice interior, and it seems extremely popular, particularly with the local Chinese community.

While we were at Sunnybank, I used the voucher my brother gave me for Christmas to buy Animal Farm and a book called How to Get Things Done, by David Allen. The second book was recommended by my friend Rhys, whom I saw at our annual UQIT2K Christmas gathering (UQIT2K being the name of the mailing list we set up after we graduated from ITEE at UQ in 2000). I figure I need to get a bit more organised. After taking an official Myers-Briggs test at the NICTA retreat, I found out that I’m an ENTP. I’m only marginally ‘E’. I used to be an ‘I’, and my personality is only E-like at work. I’m definitely ‘N’, ‘T’ and ‘P’. The ‘P’ means I’m laissez faire, disorganised and a bit chaotic. While the laid back thing is good, I’d like to organise some aspects of my life a bit better, which will hopefully give me more time to do more stuff, such as reading all those books I still have to read!

Categories
Random observations

What’s Ricky reading?

I’ve spent the last year or so working my way through Don Quixote, and I’m still nowhere near completing it. It’s not that it’s a bad book, it’s more that I’ve been reading multiple other things at the same time. At the moment I’m reading Nineteen Eighty-Four, which I was given for Christmas, and a micro-economics text book (I don’t know why). I’ve also just started reading Einstein’s Relativity – The Special and the General Theory which I found on Karen’s bookshelf. I’ve also become and avid reader of the The Economist, which NICTA QRL has a subscription of. That newspaper (yes, I know it looks like a magazine, but it’s a newspaper, okay) invariably makes for interesting reading. It has become my primary source for keeping abreast of what’s happening in the world. The writing is excellent, and whenever an argument is made in favour or against a policy etc., it is always well reasoned. It also has good coverage of the most important or interesting scientific news of the week, and each quarter it has a special section on technology, which is often very cool.

So much to read, so little time…

Categories
Random observations

Strong AI by 2029

Earlier this month, Ray Kurzweil presented a paper at the Dartmouth Artificial Intelligence Conference which proclaimed that strong AI will be possible within the next 25 years: 2029, specifically, is the year he’s suggested a machine will first pass the Turing Test. If he’s right, what a time to be alive! Even if he’s wrong by a few decades, centuries or millennia, we’ve still got a lot to look forward to in our lifetimes. Techniques pioneered by AI researchers have been finding their way into mainstream applications for years, and this trend will continue as computing power increases and researchers invent ever-smarter algorithms.

While I’m not sure strong AI will arrive quite as quickly as Kurzweil thinks it will, I’m firmly in the camp that thinks it will arrive one day. I see no reason to believe that the human brain (or any kind of “brain” for that matter) is endowed with some mystical property that provides its intelligence. Although Kurzweil’s timeframe seems a bit on the optimistic side, it will take only one or two propitious findings in the fields of computer science or neuroscience to catalyse AI research and bring the goal of strong AI much closer.

Can’t wait!

Categories
Eco-philo-pol

The Undercover Economist

I recently bought a book called The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford. After a rather too cutesy beginning, in which his explanations of how scarcity determines the price of everyday items are somewhat more longwinded and waffly than they ought to be (a bit like this sentence), Harford’s book warms to the task of convincing the lay reader (for that is the audience at which the book is aimed) that free markets are good for the most part. If you’ve ever wondered about the connection between used cars and private health insurance (I can’t say I have, but I found that chapter interesting), or why countries like Cameroon are poor, or why China’s economy is taking off, then this book is for you; but don’t expect too much depth.

The Undercover Economist starts out by giving a pub-counter lesson in David Ricardo’s theory of economic rent. It goes on to explain the strategies used by Supermarkets and other shops to get as much money out of you as possible, and why competition is important. The middle chapters outline why perfect markets convey ultimate truths, why and how externalities (positive ones and negative ones) ought to be accounted for and under what circumstances markets fail. It’s in the chapter about market failure that he discusses used cars and private health insurance – which are both examples of where the market can and often does fail (hint: think about the disparity between what a seller knows and what a buyer knows in the used car market or in the market for health insurance). There’s a chapter which explains why rational investment behaviour leads to erratic stock prices. One of my favourite chapters was about designing auctions to sell radio spectrum: Australia, New Zealand and the US got some of their auctions terribly wrong, leaving the public short-changed. Britain, on the other hand, designed a near perfect auction for 3G licences, leading to a big windfall for the public (Harford goes on to show why the common assumption that high costs for 3G licences imply high prices for consumers of mobile phone services is a fallacy). The last three chapters tackle "the big issues", which are often the subject of news stories: poverty, globalisation and the rising behemoth called China. Harford argues that sweatshop conditions are better than what came before them, and that sweatshop economies are a mere stepping stone to a much brighter future, which, given the evidence is an argument hard to refute. However, he doesn’t answer the question as to whether the sweatshop path is the only way to an improved quality of life.

Overall, an interesting book, though not groundbreaking. It provides a nice refresher in Economics 101, and clears up some misconceptions for the lay reader. For example, it’s easy to think about prices and rents the wrong way, and sometimes I catch myself making the mistake. Starbucks on the corner of Queen’s Plaza in the city will charge high prices for coffee because that’s what I’m willing to pay, and the owner of Queen’s Plaza charges high rent to Starbucks because the price of a cup of coffee is high. The price of a cup of coffee isn’t high because rent is high. Some people have claimed that Freakonomics is a better book, though Harford does a better job of showing how economic theories postulated in the nineteenth century explain a lot about the way the world works in the twenty-first century.