Following on from Monday's post, click here to read an op-ed on the pros and cons of inequality, which draws heavily on Angus Deaton's work. It argues that inequality is good if it occurs as a result of industrialisation / innovation and if it spurs further innovation. However, too much inequality can undermine support for the political system and private enterprise. In other words, there is an optimal amount of inequality!
The Berkeley Earth Project , an independent study of global warming, has found that the earth has become a degree warmer over the past half century. However, the statistical uncertainty surrounding pre-1920 estimates makes it very hard to say much about long-term trends - click here for graph . This is one of my concerns with the global warming debate - we simply don't have trustworthy long-run data which looks at temperature changes over the last millennium (or two). My second concern with the global warming debate is that it is very hard to prove any sort of casual link between global warming and human activity. The scientists may be able to show correlation between global warming and our production of carbon dioxides etc., but correlation is not causation. My third concern with the debate is that those who are sceptical or agnostic are stereotyped as flat-earthers or intellectually-challenged crackpots. This only stifles debate and the progress of science itself.