There is a real and growing prospect of an all-out trade war being waged in the name of climate change.
The struggle to generate international agreement on a carbon deal has created a desire to punish “free riders” who do not sign on to stringent carbon emission reduction targets. But the greater goals seem to be to barricade imports from China and India, to tax companies that outsource, and to go for short-term political benefits, destroying free trade.
This is a massive mistake. Economic models show that the global benefits of even slightly freer trade are in the order of $50 trillion — 50 times more than we could achieve, in the best of circumstances, with carbon cuts. If trade becomes less free, we could easily lose $50 trillion — or much more if we really bungle things. Poor nations — the very countries that will experience the worst of climate damage — would suffer most.
In other words: In our eagerness to avoid about $1 trillion worth of climate damage, we are being asked to spend at least 50 times as much — and, if we hinder free trade, we are likely to heap at least an additional $50 trillion loss on the global economy.
Bjorn Lomborg, “Costly Carbon Cuts: Proposed Strategies Would Hurt the Most Vulnerable”, The Washington Post, 2009-09-28
September 28, 2009
QotD: Gambling on CO2 reduction
September 26, 2009
Those confusing/conflicting Arctic ice stories
How can it be that on one day, we’re told that the Arctic is thawing at an unprecedented rate, yet the next day we’re told that the ice is twice as thick as predicted? Lawrence Solomon tries to sort out the sensational from the prosaic:
If you’re confused by stats on Arctic melting, you have lots of company. Arctic stats are easy to misunderstand because the Arctic environment is unlike our own — the Arctic magnifies the changes we experience in the temperate regions. In summer, our days get longer and theirs get really, really long, just as in winter, when our days gets shorter, theirs all but disappear. By analogy, the Arctic also magnifies temperature variations, and resulting changes to its physical environment.
In the Arctic, the ice has indeed been contracting, as the global warming doomsayers have been telling us. But it has also been expanding. The riddle of how the Arctic ice can both be contracting and expanding is easily explained. After you read the next two paragraphs, you’ll be able to describe it easily to your friends to set them straight.
September 24, 2009
Another reason why there’s still debate over Climate Change/Global Warming
True believers treat skeptics on the Climate Change/Global Warming question as heretics because “the proof is right there” . . . except the data supporting the case is not available to study:
. . . the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.
Or so it seems. Apparently, they were either lost or purged from some discarded computer. Only a very few people know what really happened, and they aren’t talking much. And what little they are saying makes no sense.
[. . .]
If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?
All of this is much more than an academic spat. It now appears likely that the U.S. Senate will drop cap-and-trade climate legislation from its docket this fall — whereupon the Obama Environmental Protection Agency is going to step in and issue regulations on carbon-dioxide emissions. Unlike a law, which can’t be challenged on a scientific basis, a regulation can. If there are no data, there’s no science. U.S. taxpayers deserve to know the answer to the question posed above.
September 23, 2009
A few random links
- Nick Packwood on a reason to be proud of Canada: “Canada’s entire delegation is set to walk out of the United Nations General Assembly chamber when Persian tyrant, Twelver whack job and Holocaust denier/enthusiast Mahmoud Ahmadinejad takes the podium.”
- Talking down to irresponsible American adults. “Secretary Chu said he didn’t think that the public would throw the same political temper tantrum over climate legislation has has happened with the healthcare debate.”
- “You Can Have Either Sex or Immortality”
- Pimp my . . . bed?
“After years of catering to women, manufacturers are setting their sights on men. The new macho mattresses they’re introducing have “muscle-recovery properties” and cooling technology, on the theory that men are more likely to feel too hot in bed. The bed frames feature built-in TVs, iPod docking stations, wine coolers, safes and other guy-friendly gadgetry.”
September 9, 2009
They switched to calling it “Climate Change” for a reason
After all the vitriol over anthropomorphic (man-made) “Global Warming”, it was a significant change when the organizations which had been most prominent in trying to bring it to public attention switched terminology to Climate Change instead:
Last week a UK tribunal ruled that belief in manmade global warming had the same status as a religious conviction, such as transubstantiation. True believers in the hypothesis will need mountains of faith in the years ahead.
The New Scientist has given weight to the prediction that the planet is in for a cool 20 years — defying the computer models and contemporary climate theory. It’s “bad timing”, admits the magazine’s environmental correspondent, Fred Pearce.
Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, quoted by the magazine, attributes much of the recent warming to naturally occurring ocean cycles. Scientific study of the periodic ocean climate variability is in its infancy; for example the PDO or Pacific Decadal Oscillation, was only described in the late 1990s. It’s the Leibniz team which predicted a forthcoming cooling earlier this year — causing a bullying outbreak at the BBC.
Much of the resistance to the “orthodoxy” of global warming was caused by the strong suspicion that this was merely an excuse for greater government control over business and further restrictions on individuals for a nebulous goal. It certainly didn’t help that any extreme or unusual weather was automatically “caused by global warming” according to the vast majority of media reports.
If global warming/climate change was actually being caused (or increased) by human activity, the proposals to “fix” the problem almost always seemed to impose far greater costs than the problem itself. Activists saying that the west pretty much had to give up most of their modern comforts (and their industrial base) in order to “save the planet” did their cause more harm than good.
Some data seemed to support the global warming theory, while other data seemed to contradict it. Rather than following traditional scientific methodology, too many scientists forgot their basic training and tried conducting media science (where peer review and providing raw data to support your findings are not required or expected). By saying that the problem was “too urgent” to be slowed down by following normal procedure, they undermined their own cause. By exaggerating the likely results if global warming was actually happening, they stopped being scientists at all and instead became political activists.
The confidence that higher atmospheric CO2 levels will result in significant long-term increases in temperature is founded on knock-on effects, or positive feedbacks, amplifying the CO2 effect. Large positive feedbacks imply “runaway” global warming — aka Thermageddon.
But even the basics are fiercely contested. Does a warmer climate mean more or fewer clouds, and do these trap even more heat, or act as a sunshade, cooling it back down again? Clouds are so poorly understood, you can take your pick. So if the climate isn’t getting warmer, the theory requires the view that the energy must be “hiding” somewhere, mostly likely in oceanic heat sinks.
But neither the feedbacks, nor the oceans, are currently being kind to contemporary climate theory.
