Skip to content

Climate Commission hubris may lead to nemesis for our economy – UPDATE 1 – Model suspect and not acceptable

12/03/2021

Previously I wrote

I am deeply suspicious of the Climate Commission Report. The Commission has been set an overtly political brief, but both it and it’s progenitor James Shaw seem to see it as unnecessary to actually justify their objectives, yet to achieve the objectives will, if they are proceeded with, require massive societal and economic change which I suspect few, if indeed any, really comprehend fully.

Therefore, I find the hubris exhibited by the Commission deeply troubling, for example see this very concerning post at Eric Crampton’s blog:

It would be useful to remember the modeling around Covid and how inaccurate that turned out to be.

I find the reason for non-disclosure highly suspect.

Then I came across this

Given the possible scale of change necessary, the manner in which the work is being undertaken strikes me as cavalier, but the attitude taken, means we cannot properly judge.

I am very concerned that the Ardern regime has apparently committed to implementing the report, in advance of receiving it.

What process is in place for review?

How can affected parties assess the validity of the findings if underlying data, etc is not released?

What is the competency of the Commission to perform this work?

What checks and balances are in place?

Will the report be peer reviewed, and if so who by?

How were the models developed, who were they developed by and what was/is the track record of the developers in formulating similar models? 6

Did the models, for example allow appropriately, for the impact of ceasing production here, and the impact of producing elsewhere?

I suspect the model is underpinned by some heroic assumptions and presumes that ‘she’ll be right’ – not a recipe for success, especially when there has been little effort to secure willing ‘buy in’ though there has been lip service to the concept and some PR from the regime’s media lackeys.

This suspicion is supported by the argument that in reality there will be little perceived cost.

Frankly I do not believe that claim.

We need complete openness and transparency now!

UPDATE 12 March 2021

Now I see this

How the devil can proper feedback be provided unless there is access to the details of the model.

This behaviour by the Climate Commission is totally unacceptable and renders any policies adopted based on this model, as suspect and substandard. There is no rational reason for this behaviour.

As usual with this government, we see an authoritarian approach being adopted. This model will be used to base critical decisions affecting all aspects of life going forward, but the basis for the model is to be withheld during the relatively short consultation period.

Frankly, my view is that this is unethical and morally wrong.

%d bloggers like this: