From an Indian skeptic and blogger. A rejoinder and a challenge to Mr Garnaut.
a) the current episode of MILD warming is PRIMARILY natural;
b) the impact of manmade CO2 is real but minimal, and unlikely to accelerate with increased CO2;
c) the benefits of increased CO2 appear to be significantly greater than costs;
d) the Earth held far greater levels of CO2 in its atmosphere in the past and did not experience runaway global warming. A large number of natural processes (plants, primarily) exist on Earth that check runaway effects;
e) projections of warming and sea-level rise by climate models have, so far, been grossly exaggerated; and
f) IPCC and many senior scientists from reputed institutions have published numerous false reports and ACTIVELY prevented healthy scientific debate .
Government funded institutions on this subject have lost credibility, particularly given the large number of independent scientific views that contradict government-supported findings. Group think is a common flaw in all governments, given strong incentives to shut out internal debate.
Check out some of his older posts, there is great stuff there, including some “delectable quotes” from a paper by Demsetz which he especially likes.
This article, by Harold Demsetz, published in the February 2011 issue of The Review of Economics and Law, is perhaps one of the most profound articles published since Hayek’s pathbreaking 1945 paper “The Use of Knowledge in Society“. Demseltz’s article can be downloaded free of cost from the link provided above after you provide your your details. It has been an absolute pleasure to read this paper.
“e) projections of warming and sea-level rise by climate models have, so far, been grossly exaggerated”
Looks like some of them have been wrong, but not in the way Sabhlok Sr thinks:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12687272
Jarrah
12 Mar 11 at 4:16 pm
Jarrah – these are merely projections from computer models. Garbage in garbage out. To date there are no observable sea level rises.
Samuel J
12 Mar 11 at 4:47 pm
For an alternative view
Biota
12 Mar 11 at 4:50 pm
Oops, how come the link didn’t work?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/why-im-not-worried-about-greenlands-icecap/#more-35671
Biota
12 Mar 11 at 4:51 pm
Jarrah, do you have the training, expertise and a record of work in the field that permits you to form an independent opinion about sea-level rises or any other climate-related issue?
I don’t, but I don’t claim any authority beyond common sense and large measure of skepticism about Green fanatics.
In any case, our nuanced commentator is not contesting a degree of warming, he is politely requesting a thorough cost-benefit analysis so we can have an informed public debate before there is massive increase in regulation and disruption of the economy (and our way of life), most likely with no measurable impact on the climate.
Rafe
12 Mar 11 at 6:02 pm
“Methinks you do protest too much”
You lot spend so much time debunking the standard science of climate change that I assume you are insecure about your position.
I guess with mentors like Rafe, CL, Samuel and Andrew Bolt it is understandable.
hc
12 Mar 11 at 6:06 pm
hc, do you agree that there should be a cost-benefit analysis and public debate of the outcome before a major decision?
Rafe
12 Mar 11 at 6:54 pm
Good comments from Lorenzo Warby
http://erudito.livejournal.com/956433.html
Rafe
12 Mar 11 at 7:04 pm
We can dump 9bn of fossil fuel subsidies, deregulate nuclear. NO cost to the taxpayer. GDP positive. Far less CO2 pollution and far less radiological pollution from coal. Cheaper energy.
It would be far more effective than any mitigation scheme.
Let’s do it.
.
12 Mar 11 at 7:08 pm
The debate has been going on for years – have you not noticed? – and there have been innumerable cost benefit analyses – Stern, Garnaut, Nordhaus and all reach the same conclusion even though they have markedly different discount rates and politics.
The cost of not addressing climate change is high and according to Weitman and others potentially catastrophic.
The cost of addressing it is relatively small – not negligible but manageable. The basic reason being that energy costs (direct and indirect) are a small part of the economy.
Asking for another debate and more cost-benefit analyses now shows only that you have not been following things.
Its not sensible to argue for doing nothing or for claiming to be a sceptic if you are approaching the issue from the position of ignorance.
And wait for the first moron to respond that Stern used a low discount rate. I’ll provide an answer in advance – Nordhaus did not.
hc
12 Mar 11 at 7:11 pm
An Inconvenient Truth is on TV right now. I’ve never seen it so I’m quite enjoying it!
daddy dave
12 Mar 11 at 7:18 pm
Of course he is right. Lets think about this a little (but not too long, I have an appointment with my podiatrist who is particular about time).
India is the home of curries. I like curries. Sanjeev, who is also a politician, likes curries. Therefore I like Sanjeev. End of story.
rog
12 Mar 11 at 7:33 pm
Do you live in Normanhurst DD?
Just asking – you fit the profile.
rog
12 Mar 11 at 7:36 pm
Dotty is prattling on about nuclear whilst the Japs are plugging the leaks.
Plan B?
rog
12 Mar 11 at 7:38 pm
what profile rog? I don’t live in Normanhurst.
The interesting thing about the movie – so far – is that everything is present tense.
Global warming causes this… does that…
coral reefs are bleaching because of global warming and other factors…
etc.
That’s probably it’s biggest flaw. Fact, hypothesis, prediction and speculation are all blurred together. But quite watchable.
The bits about his life story are excellent.
daddy dave
12 Mar 11 at 7:46 pm
dd is live blogging An Inconvenient Truth!? Fucking scintillating use of technology, dude!
Peter Patton
12 Mar 11 at 7:49 pm
Do you have a Twitter account?
Peter Patton
12 Mar 11 at 7:49 pm
That’s not a nuanced position on climate change. Now, THIS is a nuanced position on climate change!
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2011/03/12/christopher-pearson-julia-gillard-needs-a-good-sociologist-on-staff/#comment-267724
Peter Patton
12 Mar 11 at 8:03 pm
dd is live blogging An Inconvenient Truth!? Fucking scintillating use of technology, dude!
LOL
daddy dave
12 Mar 11 at 8:40 pm
shut up rog
New plant designs don’t have the same problems. Get an education
What rate did Nordhaus use hc?
Note that it doesn’t mean we should load up with a tax if we can mitigate through microeconomic reform. A CBA being passed for mitigation doesn’t necessarily mean that all mitigation schemes pass.
.
12 Mar 11 at 8:43 pm
late news 19 coal miners die in China.
The comparative death rates from nuclear power and coal mining represents one of the positives for nuclear.
http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2006/01/us_coal_mining_.html
China’s coal-mining death toll over the last several years:
2000: 5,300 deaths.
2001: 5,670 deaths.
2002: 5,791 deaths.
2003: 7,200 deaths.
2004: 6,027 deaths.
2005: 5,986 deaths.
2006: 4,746 deaths.
2007: 3,786 deaths.
2008: 3,215 deaths.
2009: 2,631 deaths.
Rafe
12 Mar 11 at 9:43 pm
I’ve said this before, but in 30 years it will either be substantially warmer than today or it won’t.
The conservative movement for whatever reason have decided to nail their colours to the no-AGW mast. (Or in this case, the “nuanced” no-material-AGW mast).
Which means that in 30 years, the conservative movement will either be discredited in the eyes of most and forced into a series of embarrassing backdowns, or they’ll end up looking like heroes.
It’s a very brave, high stakes move to attach a political ideology to a question of empirical reality.
PSC
12 Mar 11 at 10:38 pm
It’s a very brave, high stakes move to attach a political ideology to a question of empirical reality.
That cuts both ways, PSC.
The left have done exactly the same thing to the other side of the debate. The green movement, in particular, has put all their chips on this bet.
daddy dave
12 Mar 11 at 10:45 pm
Actually I take that back. If global warming turns out to be a load of cobblers, the green movement will just refocus to the next boogeyman:
* GMOs
* peak oil
* “biodiversity”
* the oceans (toxins, lack of fish, and so on)
* overpopulation again
…the list goes on. So, I guess you’re right, PSC. The green movement won’t give a flying fuck if they were wrong about global warming because there are plenty more bullets in their pistol.
daddy dave
12 Mar 11 at 10:49 pm
PSC,
There have been recent statistically valid studies showing that warming is only in part human induced, much less than previously thought, and the outcome will be much less hotter than the original models predicted.
It’s no big deal and we could deal with it by minimal cost, we can effectively mitigate through microeconomic reform.
Some people unfortunately just love the idea of dreaming up new taxes and licensing schemes.
.
13 Mar 11 at 7:16 am
PSC you are neglecting a couple of other issues. Yes it could be warmer in 30 years. Yes it could be due to AGW. But that in itself is still not sufficient to give carte blanche to emissions reduction schemes. Because 1) they probably won’t make any difference, especially if China and India continue to develop (as I hope they do) 2) it will be cheaper to adapt rather than take action which is likely to be ineffective 3) nuclear power is likely to be widespread – Japan shows that even some of its old plants can survive one of the biggest earthquakes in history. Did you know that Japan’s main island moved 2.4 metres and the earth shifted 25 cm because of the force of the quake.
samuel j
13 Mar 11 at 8:10 am
PSC, no CAGW doesn’t mean that we think temperatures will be stable from now to eternity. BTW, what do you consider substantial? 0.6C? Oh, and why another thirty years, surely another 10 or 20 enough?
dover_beach
13 Mar 11 at 8:29 am
How do you know adaption will be cheaper Samuel?
sdfc
13 Mar 11 at 6:42 pm
Obvious, sdfc. Adaptive measures can be targeted against identified problems.
The current greentard position is to expend vast (but unknown) volumes of money on unknown problems with no known outcomes.
See the transcript of the Steve Price/Andrew Bolt interview with the EU ETS woman – she’s here spruiking exactly this sort of nonsensical greenie position. She had no idea what the cost was, and no idea of the outcome of the expenditure.
How can that stance possibly be an efficient use of public funds?
MarkL
Brisbane
MarkL of Canberra
13 Mar 11 at 6:59 pm
The current greentard position is to expend vast (but unknown) volumes of money on unknown problems with no known outcomes.
bingo.
daddy dave
13 Mar 11 at 7:00 pm
“To date there are no observable sea level rises.”
Have you ever considered visiting reality, Samuel?
Jarrah
14 Mar 11 at 12:31 pm
Here, Keyze… this dude says there is no noticeable sea rise other than the continual rise dude to the thawing of the last ice age.
Take it up with Muller.
JC
14 Mar 11 at 12:34 pm
Our new climate czar, thunderegg fancier Tim Flannery, believes eight storey buildings might soon be inundated.
Before his recent claim that Gaia is a living being, this was the professional wrongologist’s most hilarious theological statement.
C.L.
14 Mar 11 at 12:38 pm
” Tim Flannery, believes eight storey buildings might soon be inundated.” [emphasis mine]
Link please.
Jarrah
14 Mar 11 at 9:49 pm
Yep. No hockey stick in see level rise. Can’t be CO2.
jumpnmcar
14 Mar 11 at 9:55 pm
Jump, why should sea levels mirror CO2 or temperature rises?
Jarrah
14 Mar 11 at 10:29 pm
Jar
In your example, sea level rise doesn’t mirror CO2 emission rise.
I believe your example shows that.
Dont you?
jumpnmcar
14 Mar 11 at 10:43 pm
Jar? It’s Keyze as in Keysar Trad. Keyze thinks he’s always quoted out of context.
JC
14 Mar 11 at 10:53 pm
Oh, and why another thirty years, surely another 10 or 20 enough?
In a word, noise.
But you’re right, 20 years should be enough. 10 on the other hand, not quite.
PSC
15 Mar 11 at 1:28 am