The last hurrah of warmaholics

(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690289-7583,00.html)

NICHOLAS Stern is a distinguished economist. Climate change is a complex, uncertain and contentious scientific issue. Have you spotted the problem with the Stern review yet?

An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative understanding of the natural climate system and a dispassionate, accurate consideration of all the costs and benefits of warming as well as cooling.

Unfortunately, the Stern review is not a cost-benefit but a risk analysis, and of warming only.

This adroit shuffle of the pea under the thimble perhaps explains why Stern's flawed and partial account of our possible climate future stresses costs, ignores benefits, and fails to consider the all too likely eventuality of future cooling.

Even more unfortunate for Stern than his restricted brief is that there is no established theory of climate. Stern therefore has to rely on the advice of others in providing the summary of climate science that occupies the first 21 pages of his review. Though he cites a range of scientific literature, his summary strongly reflects the unsatisfactory consensus view of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The advice to policy-makers that governments periodically receive from the IPCC contains political rather than scientific advice. In concert with this, over the past 10 years the IPCC has moved from being primarily a reviewer of the science evidence to being an advocate for the alarmist case for global warming.

Perhaps the most important scientific point made in the Stern review is the statement that "the accuracy of climate predictions is limited by computer power" .

Nonetheless, the review's risk analysis assumes that the computer models used are able to predict the future path of global climate for policy purposes. They cannot.

Worse, even if the models did have global predictive skill, that would only be a tiny first step towards policy advice, because the global average temperature or sea level rise that the models calculate are conceptual statistics, not physical realities.

Estimating accurate costs and benefits for future environmental change requires not just knowledge of changing global averages but accurate, site-specific predictions for all parts of the planet.

For example, from 1965 to 1998, measured sea level rose slightly in Townsville and fell slightly in Cairns. Presuming that these trends continue, there is obviously the need for different coastal management plans for the two regions. Now repeat that thought exercise for future changes in temperature, precipitation and sea level worldwide. To make actual and accurate predictions for this is, of course, impossible.

Stern has surely accepted his IPPC-centric science advice in good faith, yet that turns out to be his fatal mistake. Because there is copious evidence that the advice is untrustworthy. For instance, participants at a recent international climate conference in Stockholm were told that the hockey-stick depiction of temperature over the last 1000 years, an IPCC favourite, has been discredited; that pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were higher, and fluctuated more, than is indicated by the averaged ice core measurements; that global temperature has not increased since 1998, despite continuing increases in carbon dioxide; that the Arctic region is no warmer now than it was in the 1930s; and that climate models are too uncertain to be used as predictive policy tools.

These considerations undercut the core IPCC arguments for dangerous human-caused warming, as contained in its 2001 assessment report. Yet early drafts of the forthcoming fourth assessment report reveal that IPCC thinking does not consider these deep uncertainties, and neither does Stern.

The opinion of Bjorn Lomborg, writing in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, suggests that it is not just Stern's science that is flawed. Lomborg accuses Stern of cherry-picking statistics to fit the argument, such as massaging future warming cost estimates from the generally accepted 0per cent of gross domestic product now to 3 per cent in 2100 to figures as high as "20 per cent now and forever".

It seems that the economics of the Stern review is as shaky as the science, given that Lomborg concludes that "its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalised, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off".

The Stern review has been presented as a rigorous treatment of climate change and its economic effects. In reality, however, the review is a political document whose relation to the truth is about the same as that of the notorious British report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

The Stern agenda in Britain is to enable Labour to compete for eco-votes with an increasingly green-oriented Tory party. A wider agenda is the imposition of carbon levies for goods and services provided from outside Europe, thereby penalising more efficient competitors elsewhere. The European Union has form on this, and has previously tried to use DDT and genetic engineering of food as bogies to justify trade barriers.

Among a range of possible carbon morality taxes, Stern considers the application of a food-miles levy on produce subjected to lengthy air transport. Subsequent media coverage has concentrated on earlier estimates that flying 1kg of kiwifruit from New Zealand to Europe generates 5kg of carbon dioxide. With delicious irony, it turns out that virtually all NZ kiwifruit are transported by ship, yet arrive in Britain at a price that undercuts local supplies. No wonder a levy is needed.

Australian grape growers are doubtless already resigned to having an extra "noble carbon" levy imposed on their products, to the advantage of their French competitors. For that matter, why not a ballet miles surcharge on tickets at Covent Garden when the Australian Ballet next visits London? And given that most British dildos probably come from overseas, perhaps UK citizens will soon have dildo miles, too.

The Stern review is not about climate change but about economic, technological and trade advantage. Its perpetrators seek power through climate scaremongering. The review's release was carefully timed to closely precede this month's US congressional elections and the Nairobi climate conference. Beyond these events, we can expect another burst of alarmist hallelujahs to accompany the launch of IPCC's assessment report in February.

Though it will be lionised for a while yet, the Stern review is destined to join Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb and think tank the Club of Rome's manifesto, Limits to Growth, in the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded. It is part of the last hurrah for those warmaholics who inhabit a world of virtual climate reality that exists only inside flawed computer models.

Meanwhile, the empirical data stressed by climate rationalists will ultimately prevail over the predictions of the unvalidated computer models. Perhaps then we will be able to attend to the real climate policy problem, which is to prepare response plans for extreme weather events, and for climate warmings as well as coolings, in the same way we prepare to cope with all other natural hazards.

Bob Carter is a geologist and founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation.

Uhm... I agree that some use climate change models for political purposes, and even that there is a degree of scaremongering among certain quarters regarding these models, but you seem to be trying to deny global warming altogether, or at the very least saying that it will go away with natural temperature fluctuations (which by the way is also a flawed argument because of the fact that we are statistically overdue a global cooling, but instead temperatures are rising).
You also infer that CO2 does not have an impact on global temperatures ("CO2 levels have risen since 1998, but global temperatures have not" )
What you fail to see is that there is empirical data to support the CO2 case. It does trap infrared radiation, on geological timescales, periods of high CO2 (even as far back as the dinosaurs) did have higher temperatures, and the CO2 that has been trapped since those periods is now being released.
As for your claim that these theories on global warming are being used by European politicians to bolster trade barriers, while this may (or maybe not) be true, is it not a fair statement that downplaying the effect of global warming is being used as a political tool for the powers that be in the US and China to prevent making politically sensitive decisions regarding industry?
Politics can not be avoided in a case such as this. There will always be people that exaggerate or underestimate compelling data. But surely we should at least minimise CO2 emissions as much as we can given that that has been the natural norm for millions of years?

Edit... removed a smiley that shouldn't have been there (typo)

Originally posted by agryson
Uhm... I agree that some use climate change models for political purposes, and even that there is a degree of scaremongering among certain quarters regarding these models, but you seem to be trying to deny global warming altogether, or at the very least saying that it will go away with natural temperature fluctuations (which by the way is also a flawed argum norm for millions of years?

Edit... removed a smiley that shouldn't have been there (typo)

Originally posted by SpastiGov
...cherry-picking statistics to fit the argument...

It's not theory, it's an established pattern that the earth has followed for around 50 million years now where there are warm ages and ice ages. They follow a periodic pattern.
To be honest, while I always try to attack the argument rather than the argumentation, you seem to simply want to make a point and stick to it, not exactly a forum like thing to do. The body of scientific research and indeed the vast majority of the scientific community believe this is a threat to be taken seriously, whereas you seem to want it to be labelled as some kind of politically motivated conspiracy to undermine opponents to EU trade barriers. Also I understand that I may be arguing from authority in this post, something I prefer not to do also, but I can't see any other way to argue against someone who arbitrarily decides (or reads papers by people who arbitrarily decide, despite the PHYSICS) that CO2 has no effect on global warming.
Also, the sun does not cause drastic temperature fluctuations, it provides a relatively constant amount of heat energy (as mentioned in the above post) and it is the earths atmosphere and ice cap size that determines the main global temperature. It's about as closed a system as you can get provided no big rocks fall from the sky.

Originally posted by agryson
It's not theory, it's an established pattern that the earth has followed for around 50 million years now where there are warm ages and ice ages. They follow a periodic pattern.
To be honest, while I always try to attack the argument rather than the argumentation, you seem to simply want to make a point and stick to it, not exactly a forum like thing to do. ...[text shortened]... ature. It's about as closed a system as you can get provided no big rocks fall from the sky.

Originally posted by agryson
whereas you seem to want it to be labelled as some kind of politically motivated conspiracy to undermine opponents to EU trade barriers.

Originally posted by kmax87
Even the so-called consensus is little more than researchers sifting through the abstracts of academic research papers, and on the basis of the authors theses they have judged global warming to be a probable certainty. No evaluation of whether the science used to guide the paper's conclusions are indeed accurate. Rather a seeming dependence on the fact that a ...[text shortened]... er the proposals or conclusions made in the abstract of a journal article can stand as fact.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20690289-7583,00.html)

NICHOLAS Stern is a distinguished economist. Climate change is a complex, uncertain and contentious scientific issue. Have you spotted the problem with the Stern review yet?

An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative ...[text shortened]... is a geologist and founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation.

Originally posted by SpastiGov
I see. So you're saying the earth is "due" for another ice age (perhaps just like the one predicted in the seventies by another so-called "consensus" of scientists, but that also never happened?? That one?) but that mankind's industrial CO2 emissions are so huge, the climate has now gone from one of imminent global ice to imminent runaway heat?

So you'r ...[text shortened]... control in the opposite direction to where it was heading.

Yeah right. Good effort.

In fairness I'm the one who mentioned the global cooling thing that should have happened by now, but I've also said though, that there probably are some political motivations behind the warming scare, but that this is not enough to throw the baby out with the bath water.
It's also not only the production of CO2 that affects CO2 levels, but also the damage humans do to carbon sinks such as rainforests, and peat bogs which soak up CO2 that is produced.
To be honest I am very scared that there are people alive today who can convince themselves that global warming is not something we need to be taking care of. I know I sound like a tree hugging hippy when I say that, but I am genuinely concerned, I thought it was industrially motivated challenges to research, I didn't think it was actually believed by real people.
We're f*%#ed

Originally posted by SpastiGov
I see. So you're saying the earth is "due" for another ice age (perhaps just like the one predicted in the seventies by another so-called "consensus" of scientists, but that also never happened?? That one?) but that mankind's industrial CO2 emissions are so huge, the climate has now gone from one of imminent global ice to imminent runaway heat?

So you'r control in the opposite direction to where it was heading.

Yeah right. Good effort.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Please refrain from using your "mind-reading" tactics (Thread 70940); also, please quit paraphrasing posts innaccurately.

Where are you getting the notion that we are due for a "global cooling"? Show me a forecast climate model that suggests we are going to enter a period of global cooling in the near future.

Also, just because plants ...[text shortened]... ant issue revolves around how much carbon dioxide will affect global warming in the future.

Originally posted by uzless
Jesus spasti. What are you suggesting here?

You're saying 99% of the worlds scientists are incompetent? That 99% of them don't know what they are talking about and only 1% really have it figured out?

You're saying you have looked at the same data that 99% of scientists have and somehow you have come up with a different interpretation because you are s e environment? Geez, who'd think an economist knows much about the environment anyway??]