English as Pie :- Climate Change

I left the following comment at http://englishaspie.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/climate-change

Frankly I have never seen such a blatant attempt to shower people with half truths and omissions.

Will be interesting to see if  “Presently we are all teachers and students from The International School of Azerbaijan in Baku, Azerbaijan” choose to answer my comment.

The International School of Azerbaijan?!! Yup thats right, they are using unsupported AGW theory to teach English!

Yeah right! Maybe they should stick to visits to the Zoo!

Has the author no shame?

 

The first thing I saw when I clicked your first link was
“However, by burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil and clearing forests we have dramatically increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere and temperatures are rising.”

A misleading statement if I ever saw one.
At first read one thinks it says Carbon Dioxide is making temperatures rise, but read more closely and it says “AND” temperatures are rising.

Well no point in publishing unsupported statements I suppose.

Then we read “There is no doubt we can solve this problem. In fact, we have a moral obligation to do so. Small changes to your daily routine can add up to big differences in helping to stop global warming. The time to come together to solve this problem is now”

Now here are some unsupported facts, and a bit of guilt thrown in. Not many would miss the implication “and its your fault” in that statement.

As an economist I can see that “small changes to your routine” phrase is the understatement of the last two centuries.

Here is an economists 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.

At the very least, we need real scientific proof that CO2 makes this warming different from all the other warmings in pre-history, not to mention historic warmings which are shown to have reached higher temperatures than present, like the Holocene Maximum, The Roman Warming and The Medieval Warm Period just to name some of them.
So I do have a problem with your blog. I warn you that the public are rapidly getting more sophisticated and the AGW research path is not the secure gravy train it once was.

As you are unlikely to publish and answer this comment I will do it for you at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com where my readers will be interested to see at what lengths AGW proponents will get up to in order to evangelise their religion.

Cheers

Roger

http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

4 Responses to “English as Pie :- Climate Change”

  1. camerongilroy Says:

    Also, it’s very difficult to take any of your arguments seriously when you post cartoons like the one pictured on the front page of your website.

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Cameron,

      I take it you understand what the cartoon is saying then?

      It is also interesting that two of the politicians in that cartoon have already lost their jobs over AGW. Will Obama be next do you think?

      Cheers

      Roger

  2. Cameron Says:

    You final statement, “[w]e need real scientific proof that CO2 makes this warming different from all the other warmings in pre-history”, suggests that you are unaware that 75% of scientists are in agreement that human activity has caused an increase in global temperatures in the last fifty years. Of those 25% not in agreement, a majority were petroleum geologists. As an economist, I’m sure you understand that these scientists have an economic intensive to continue the burning of fossil fuels at the current rate. Also, one could argue that the precautionary principle comes into play in a situation such as this; if the effects of global warming, true or not, could cause economic and social disaster, why should we not make a preemptive strike against it?

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Cameron,

      Thank you for commenting.

      Yes I am quite unaware that 75% of scientists are in agreement that human activity has caused an increase in global temperatures. Presumably these scientists are blaming CO2? How would you like to provide some evidence for this unsupported statement?
      In the meantime, check out these links and others from my other blog http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
      http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
      http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf
      http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54
      http://www.petitionproject.org/

      “why should we not make a preemptive strike against it? [Global Warming]”

      Well because below is a brief economic analysis of what the IPCC is leading us into.
      If you have any disagreements about the logic, you are welcome to comment.

      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.

      You may also notice that I have not even included the IPCC proposed wealth transfers from western economies to less developed nations in this comment.

      ” As an economist, I’m sure you understand that these scientists have an economic intensive to continue the burning of fossil fuels at the current rate”

      No I am not in the least sure about this statement.

      Notice my statement above about energy/oil companies and emission traders.
      If fossil fuel prices skyrocket because of the influence of the IPCC, fossil fuel companies will decrease production and sit back to enjoy the high margins.
      This is exactly what OPEC have been trying to attain all these years but this time we are being encouraged to do it for them.

      Cameron,
      There is actually no evidence for AGW except for a number of debatable correlations.
      I dont know if you ever studied statistics, but in my freshman class, we were told over and over again, and with good reason, that correlations, while they are a required condition for a relationship, they are never proof of anything.
      And worse than that, even these correlations such as evidence that CO2 rises have historically followed global warming trends, are distinctly debateable

      As you have presumably read my blog at http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com you will be aware that there are a number of factors that are verified by historical and archaeological facts which disprove AGW.

      If your life depends on it either way, which would you believe?

      Cheers

      Roger

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: