ClimateInsight :-State of the Climate 2009

I left the following comment at http://climateinsight.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/state-of-the-climate-2009/ and received an interesting reply. See below.

2011/01/02 at 05:11

RMC, don’t be shy about publishing this, there are no lies in this comment are there?

I will also publish this under your url on my other site http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com where my readers will be interested to read your reply.
Of course no reply has a host of meaning as well.

I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.

Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.

In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

AGW is baloney anyway!

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Roger, your comments about the economics of attempting to mitigate the impact of climate change ignore several factors and make a number of unsubstantiated allegations. Please visit my “Economics” page for a number of articles which address your concerns. For example:

Nature: Economics needs a scientific revolution
… the current financial crisis highlights the crucial need of a change of mindset in economics and financial engineering, that should move away from dogmatic axioms and focus more on data, orders of magnitudes, and plausible, albeit non rigorous, arguments.

Compared to physics, it seems fair to say that the quantitative success of the economic sciences is disappointing. Rockets fly to the moon, energy is extracted from minute changes of atomic mass without major havoc, global positioning satellites help millions of people to find their way home. What is the flagship achievement of economics, apart from its recurrent inability to predict and avert crises, including the current worldwide credit crunch?

Nature 455, 1181 (30 October 2008) | doi:10.1038/4551181a; Published online 29 October 2008

Also on the economics page is a study showing that the proposed USA energy policy would result in a net benefit of $111 billion rather than introducing damage to the economy of the kind which you seem to be suggesting. Current economic theory is a straw house built upon sand, based on arbitrary axioms and ignoring fundamental “externalities” and leading to the biggest-ever “Tragedy of the Commons”. In any case, continued exponential growth with limited resources is a recipe for disaster, as is also shown on that “Economics” page.
You’re also ignoring the fact that by 2050 wind, water and solar power sources would be entirely sufficient for all world energy needs, at a cost about the same as for fossil fuels but without the associated GHG damage. I urge you to download and read this two-part paper by Jacobson and Delucchi originally published in Nov. 2009 in Scientific American but now in press for “Energy Policy”: Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power .

Your assertion that AGW is baloney is unsubstantiated and ignores the overwhelming evidence from thousands of independent studies published in reputable scientific journals showing evidence garnered for almost a hundred years that human-caused climate change is real and is caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and land-use changes. We are releasing millions of years worth of sequestered carbon in the space of about a hundred years, destroying the steady-state equilibrium with potentially disastrous result. All of this is documented on this site but I suggest that you start with the above-noted State of the Climate 2009 guide.

RMCPIPER,

Sorry about my delay in replying.

Your answer is somewhat interesting.

First of all my comment is about the cost of meeting the IPCC’s CO2 emission targets and wealth transfers.

Mitigating the impact of climate change generally refers to what to do when the sea level rises and the wheat fields dry up. Not my differentiation but the IPCC’s because thats all they talk about under their heading of “mitigation” and as I said, it is a serious omission not to do an in-depth analysis of the cost to ordinary citizens of reducing CO2 emissions.

Having said that, exactly what are the factors I have ignored and which are my unsupported allegations?

As an example, are you denying that a 10% restriction in the amount of  transport/industrial fuel will  trigger a price rise?

10% restriction, by the way is just for example, I would estimate a figure closer to the 60% reduction of CO2 emissions, as required by the IPCC.

When this price rise happens, which is a cost to every consumer, where does the growth in the economy come from? Like I said, there will be some who profit but not the public in general.

This is simple logic.

“Current economic theory is a straw house built upon sand, based on arbitrary axioms and ignoring fundamental “externalities” and leading to the biggest-ever “Tragedy of the Commons”. In any case, continued exponential growth with limited resources is a recipe for disaster” is a wild statement if I ever saw one.

I did visit your “economics” but although I have not come across this group before, I have experience with a number of political movements who advocate “no growth economics”. One I came across was also lobbying for a three day work week – for a full weeks pay of course! Obviously could not see the consquences of that.

I am afraid that I will stick to mainstream economics, which incidently, never advocates anything, it simply analyses and points out paths with different consequenses to whoever may be interested.

Your comments on the “quantitative successes of Economics” I am afraid ignores the fact that:  1. The current credit crunch was predicted when Clinton (for political reasons) encouraged/forced US banks to lower their lending criteria for home loans.

2.This was criticised by economists but ignored by the politicians.

http://www.slate.com/id/2200160/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9c0de7db153ef933a0575ac0a96f958260 

 And this brings me to your point about economists being unable to avert crisis.

 I say to you that this is because politicians hold the reins of economies, not economists, and for political reasons (read garnering votes and support) politicians ignore economic advice in all countries including mine and yours.

Most, if not all governments in our so called democracies, resort to bribing the guilable taxpayer with their own money, (which cause fiscal deficits that are almost impossible to reverse in normal circumstances), and because of the time lag between the election and the consequences of their actions, can generally blame the mess on their political opposition.

Recent examples of this are Greece, Ireland and apparently about to be followed by Spain and Portugal.  No country is immune to this especially the USA and my country.

Also on the economics page is a study showing that the proposed USA energy policy would result in a net benefit of $111 billion rather than introducing damage to the economy of the kind which you seem to be suggesting.
 
I also warn you that any agency, political or otherwise who claims that there can be real economic gains from a scenario where skyrocketing costs to basic commodities are involved, is not following mainstream economics. In fact, in the case of the Stern report which received much well deserved criticisn, I would say there are deliberate attempts to mislead the public. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n4/v29n4-5.pdf
 
Your assertion that AGW is baloney is unsubstantiated and ignores the overwhelming evidence from thousands of independent studies published in reputable scientific journals showing evidence garnered for almost a hundred years that human-caused climate change is real
 
 It is true that in these comments I have not substantiated my statement “AGW is Baloney”, however this is well substantiated in my blog http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com where you are very welcome to leave a comment. I never spam comments with an opposing point of view, however such comments may be answered with known facts and logic and could be painful if you are wedded to your ideas.
 
However lets have a look at this evidence you cite.
 
The majority of these independent studies will do something like this:
1.Find some data, for example, collate some data that shows the earths temperatures have risen.
2. Scout around fo a reason to explain this phenomina.
3. CO2 concentrations have risen recently therefore this must be the cause. because 1. It is fashionable to blame CO2, 2. CO2 has risen in recent years. 
4. Find a correlation between CO2 concentration rises and rising temperatures.
5. Therefore CO2 must cause global temperature rise.
Only trouble is that anyone who has studied freshman statistics, learns early on that correlations are not proof of anything.
Correlations are a neccesary condition for a relationship, but considering there appears to be evidence of CO2 concentrations following planetary warming, even this correlation is on very shaky ground indeed!
 
What then would constitute reasonable rigorous proof the AGW exists?
1. We could find some empirical evidence. For example, measuring the temperature of the world is an empirical process. Measuring CO2 concentrations is also an empirical process, but what is missing is empirical evidence for the causation in the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. If you can find any of that please let me know. I might come and join you.
 
2. We could  test the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. Not very likely that we could find a proof that way seeing as how we have already failed on two other counts.
 Now this is not me speaking, check out this website very carefully and run through the expected process of scientific adaption of a hypothesis and see if you honestly think the rules have been followed. http://www.experiment-resources.com/null-hypothesis.html
 

In our case, the Ho null hypothesis is that the earth warms (and cools) naturally.

Our H1 hypothesis is “Anthropogenic CO2 Causes Global Warming”

Then you do a significance test. Now find factors that show there is a 95-99% likelihood that what we see around us with regard to Global Warming cannot be due to other natural causes, which have regularly warmed and cooled the world since time immemorial and a number of times during historic times.

The website explains the principles in a simple fashion.

Without empirical proof of “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” or how anthropogenic CO2 actually CAUSES Global Warming, taking into account feedback mechanisms and many other yet to be understood mechanisms that exist in the atmosphere and its interelationships with the oceans and biosphere etc., one must at least have a valid hypothesis.

No wonder that scientists the world over are jumping up and down! If you wonder why the science does not have consensus, this is the very reason!

Here is a top scientists view and there are many more like him. http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1

Trust you and your readers find this discussion of some interest.

Cheers

 

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: