IPCC: its forecasts and their costs to global incomes
John O’Sullivan points out “after 30 years of these ‘Chicken Little’ alarmist scares” the warmist climate scientists have become imaginative in trying to retain the credibility of their predictions in light of a lack of warming.
Professor Robert Stavins, who has unimpeachable qualifications as a climate alarmist, has followed Richard Tol in taking his name off the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers report. These summaries have always been political documents that erased the caveats that scientists felt obliged, in the body of the reports, to surround the positions they expressed. This year may be different because the hollowness of the IPCC claims is being increasingly revealed by the failure of evidence to confirm the models on which global warming hysteria is grounded. Anthony Watts has scathing reviews of the IPCC written by Robert Stavins and Richard Tol.
Roy Spencer points out that many skeptics give ammunition to the warmists by citing phoney tenets like ‘there is no greenhouse effect’ or ‘CO2 does not cause warming’. He says skeptics should accept that the greenhouse effect is real – it is just that it is not very important and is as likely to be as beneficial as it is harmful.
Richard Tol explains that the IPCC estimates global costs from a 2.5 degree warming are 0.2-2.5 per cent of global GDP and costs of stabilising emissions are 1.7- 2.7 per cent of global GDP. Not only are these supposed costs and benefits trivial in the context of measures that would impose great risk involving revolutionising economies but the restraint measures “can only be met by the large-scale deployment of yet-unproven technology”.
Pat Michaels’ Australian tour
Climate scientist Pat Michaels, who for 30 years has been campaigning against exaggerated claims of human induced climate change is currently touring Australia. In 1999 he argued that the recent warming then being observed was due to random events and he offered to bet anyone that it would be cooler 10 years hence. Had anyone take him up they would have been poorer for it.
He is the author of three major books and countless papers on climate change, however, Obama’s climate czar John Holdren (one of the Club of Rome authors who 30 years ago claimed we would by now have run out of oil and many other commodities) said, “Michaels…has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.” Holdren’s judgement is once again astray – Pat has co-authored a new piece in the leading (warmist inclined) scientific journal, Nature.
There are still a few places available for his addresses in Sydney and Brisbane. See here for details.
Subsidised green products
Steve Goreham harks back to June 2008, when candidate Barack Obama stated “…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”. Wind energy was to replace fossil fuels. Today wind accounts for one per cent of the energy market, subsidies are being pared back and spending on new wind farms is in decline.
Around the world, most taxpayers and electricity customers are required to support subsidised windfarms (though, in Australia, public opposition forced Energy Australia to abandon plans to construct 40 wind facilities).
In addition to wind subsidies, the US also has the Tesla, its poster-child low energy using car. With a $465 million loan (unlikely ever to be repaid) from Washington together with a tax break of $7500 a vehicle, the green car also gets Japanese subsidised batteries and subsidies from the Californian government. It is building on this ability to extract government funds by seeking support from the Chinese government. Good luck with that one!
People interested in burning their superannuation dollars now have the opportunity of investing in kangaroo green bonds through this product. There will be tears!
Long live the Great Barrier Reef!
The IPCC claims that corals are irreversibly harmed by global warming.
But Anthony Watts reports that according to Professor Steve Palumbi and his team at Stanford, corals will survive mankind after all. Their paper published that corals can adjust their internal functions to tolerate hot water 50 times faster than they would adapt through evolutionary change alone.
Scientists inventing vacuous research projects
People get paid to do this. Camel culls would only save 1% of methane emissions in Australia according to the latest peer reviewed research. Wow!