catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

The Stern Report and its policy implications

with 156 comments

No time to make detailed comments on this today but former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern has just released his report on climate change for the UK government. His 700 page economic analysis warns that:

  • As early as 2035 global temperatures could rise by two degrees as the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reaches double pre-industrial levels.
  • Unabated climate change would cost the world between 5 per cent and 20 per cent of global gross domestic product each year.
  • He also rejects the claim that doing something to cut greenhouse gas emissions would be costly. The report argues that the cost of curbing emissions could be kept down to around 1 per cent of global GDP every year while it would open up new business opportunities, by increasing demand for new products and financial services worth hundreds of billions a year.

    In conclusion the report supports implementation of the the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, carbon emissions trading, greater co-operation between countries on low carbon technologies, and immediate action to reduce deforestation.

    John Quiggin’s short overview is here. The full report is available here.

    For further discussion – reader JC points me to a piece from a few days ago at Reason magazine by Ron Bailey. Bailey argues that Kyoto is doomed anyway and that if we must do something about reducing emissions a carbon tax is preferable because:

    First, the tax offers stability; governments, industries and consumers all see what the price of carbon based fuels will be. Second, it can be far more transparently administered across the globe. If a country fails to charge the agreed upon tax, other countries can boost their tariffs on exports from that country as a way to encourage it to join the global climate tax regime. Third, the tax can be adjusted over time to meet agreed upon global goals such as ultimate level to which to greenhouse gases should be allowed to accumulate in the atmosphere. And fourth, poor countries could be made exempt from the tax until the average incomes of their citizens reach some agreed upon level.

    Advertisements

    Written by Admin

    October 31, 2006 at 8:04 am

    Posted in Uncategorized

    156 Responses

    Subscribe to comments with RSS.

    1. The link to JQ is broken, not sure what is going on there.

      skepticlawyer

      October 31, 2006 at 8:13 am

    2. Arnold Kling has an important first take.

      http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2006/10/climate_change.html

      Sinclair Davidson

      October 31, 2006 at 9:01 am

    3. Our Greenist friends are luddites. Observe their ‘solutions’.
      (1) Tax makes the world a better place;
      (2) Failure to tax should be met by eliminating free trade;
      (3) Meeting ‘agreed upon goals’ assumes an international mechanism to do so, i.e. proto-world government;
      (4) Wealth distribution from rich to poor. A clean environment is a superior good, consequently it is the poorer economies that require a ‘price signal’ more than rich economies.

      Sinclair Davidson

      October 31, 2006 at 9:06 am

    4. The challenge will be to do what makes sense without capituating to the anti-market, nanny state and big government forces that are trying to make this their big opportunity.

      Some interesting stuff on The Austrians site, the Indonesian contribution (burning off the forests of Sumatra and Borneo) http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2006/10/on_a_recent_tri.html

      and the ten most polluted places in the world

      http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2006/10/the_worlds_wors.html

      Rafe Champion

      October 31, 2006 at 9:10 am

    5. An important first take? He concludes

      Suppose you told scientists and engineers to come up with a way to monkey around with chemicals and stuff to reduce global average temperature. My guess is that the total cost of that approach, including research and implementation, would be only a few billion bucks, give or take.

      Fighting man-made climate change with more man-made climate change almost has to be more cost-effective than fighting man-made climate change by trying to de-industrialize.

      ie. He pulls a number out of his arse and says “this is cheaper!” but the enviro conspiracy won’t let us try it.

      If it really costs a few billion dollars to do this why isn’t anyone doing it? Between the oil/coal and insurance industries alone they should be able to stump up that much to develop the science and technology if it lets them avert climate change and not other wise impact their profits. No one is stopping them developing the technology.

      I suspect that the real reason is that no one knows how much money they would have to pour down that drain or even if it is remotely feasible.

      Steve Edney

      October 31, 2006 at 9:22 am

    6. Do try to pay attention Steve. Read the paragraphs before the conclusion.

      Sinclair Davidson

      October 31, 2006 at 9:45 am

    7. I agree with Steve. That was a bloody lame post from Kling.

      Jason Soon

      October 31, 2006 at 9:49 am

    8. Sure, Kling could have hit them harder. But then the Greenists would have had a moral victory. Kling is saying that the ‘evidence’ in the Stern Report is self-confirmatory. In effect, Stern is claiming that climate science is perfectly understood and the simplicity of the models is due to a lack of computing power. Not to put too fine a point it: crap. Once again we see Greenists being congentially incapable of teling the truth.

      The Greenist model goes as follows: Take a few temperature measures, see it’s getting warmer. Okay. come up with a model that predicts its getting warmer. Fine. Then test the model against actual temperature, wow – reality confirms model. QED. It’s called circular reasoning.

      Sinclair Davidson

      October 31, 2006 at 10:06 am

    9. I agree with his comments that more computer power isn’t going to resolve things much more precisely in the climate models. The same could be said about forward macro economic modelling 50 years hence.
      But so what?

      Steve Edney

      October 31, 2006 at 10:10 am

    10. Nice theory Sinclair, but of course wrong.

      That CO2 increase would increase global temperature was predicted well before the observed increase this century. It dates back to at least 1896..

      Steve Edney

      October 31, 2006 at 10:21 am

    11. So then how do they explain the even higher temperatures in the past, before the industrial revolution?

      in economic terms, our Greenist friends are trying to do business cycle research with a fews days worth of data. They don’t know enough to draw the conclusions they do, and calibrated theoretical models are good fun to work with, but cannot form the basis of public policy that will involve expenditure of trillions of dollars.

      Sinclair Davidson

      October 31, 2006 at 10:50 am

    12. You don’t have to. I’m continually astounded by economist who should understand this making some lame arguments.

      Because I can find some period in the past when we had high growth with higher tax rates than today, doesn’t detract from the fact if we start to really crank up tax rates then we are going to have a generally poor effect on growth.

      Several things effect global climate. The level of CO2 is one of them, and the effect of increasing it will force the global climate one way.

      Steve Edney

      October 31, 2006 at 11:20 am

    13. Sorry. Steve – don’t understand your analogy. If the global temperature was warmer thousands of years ao than it is now, how do you know humans are causing the high temperatures now, if you cannot explain past high temperatures?

      Sinclair Davidson

      October 31, 2006 at 11:24 am

    14. The Greenist model goes as follows: Take a few temperature measures, see it’s getting warmer. Okay. come up with a model that predicts its getting warmer. Fine. Then test the model against actual temperature, wow – reality confirms model. QED. It’s called circular reasoning.

      This is one of the more ignorant statements written about climate change science. Creationists sometimes make more informed statements about evolutionary biology.

      As Steve pointed out, global warming was predicted in the late 19th century before any measurements were known.

      It also ignores the many testable predictions that climate models have successfully made. For example, climate models predicted a warming troposphere, whereas observations suggested that it was cooling. Later, it was found that the observations were wrong.

      Climate models from the late 80’s have predicted not just the direction of the temperature change, but the magnitude of it too. Models also successful show the spatial distribution of the observed. Additionally, a number of micro climate effects have been predicted by modeling.

      Ken Miles

      October 31, 2006 at 11:31 am

    15. Reading the Stern Report at pg 25, I found this gem.
      “The climate is a public good: those who fail to pay for it cannot be excluded from enjoying its
      benefits and one person’s enjoyment of the climate does not diminish the capacity of others to enjoy it too. Markets do not automatically provide the right type and quantity of public goods, …”

      Magnificent. Even a free market fundamentalist such as myself can learn something. The market provides the climate! And here I thought climate was a naturally occuring event.

      Yep. Junk Science, Junk Economics.

      Sinclair Davidson

      October 31, 2006 at 11:32 am

    16. I’m saying that we know that CO2 causes warming by trapping heat

      The climate is effected by other things as well, so it can have been higher in the past even with lower levels of CO2, doesn’t mean that we don’t know that increasing CO2 won’t increase the global temperature.

      So the analogy is that growth may not be 100% correlated with tax rates ie. at times relatively high growth can co-exist with relatively high taxes because of other factors.
      However this doesn’t mean that we can’t say that we won’t crush economic growth by making tax rates 80%.

      I’m not sure if that made it clearer.

      Steve Edney

      October 31, 2006 at 11:32 am

    17. If the global temperature was warmer thousands of years ao than it is now, how do you know humans are causing the high temperatures now, if you cannot explain past high temperatures?

      Who says that we can’t explain past high temperatures?

      As one goes back in time, the explanations become more qualitative and less quantitative due to increased uncertainties in the observations, but on a century time scale, the predominant natural drivers of climate change are solar variation and volcanic activity. On longer timescales (thousands of years), the earths orbital changes start to become important, and on even longer timescales, continental drift and weathering play large roles.

      Ken Miles

      October 31, 2006 at 11:39 am

    18. Kyoto is a dud by the looks of things. The price for a carbon contract has fallen because countries are cheating.

      I even think a global carbon tax would turn into a dud anyway as you simply cannot police it. You could not estimate the output of carbon as proven by the current level of cheating going on with Kyoto.

      Technology is the best answer. Apply tax relief and accelerated depreciation allowances for both old and new plants while leaving the present structure at the present rates.

      The only person supporting Kyoto is …… which in itself proves it is a lost cause.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 11:40 am

    19. Sinclair
      you’re venturing into the loopy with some of your comments

      1) All that extract is saying is that the market doesn’t properly take account of actions that taken together will affect the climate. This is just your standard market failure argument. Whether you choose to justify it in Pigouvian or Coasian grounds doesn’t make a difference. You’re playing silly language games here – that is the province of frivolous thinkers like philosophers and metaphysicians, not social scientists like economists.

      2) Human induced global warming is more or less an accepted fact. You can argue if you wish over the approrpriate response including no response. You can argue that on risk management grounds intervention isn’t justified. You can dispute the cost benefit analysis and claim that the benefits to some part of the world outweigh the cost and therefore it’s more efficient for the beneficiaries to just compensate the cost-bearers in other ways (which seems to be Deepak Lal’s approach) rather than to reduce emissions. But all this hot air blowing over whether there is global warming caused by CO2 is pointless.

      Jason Soon

      October 31, 2006 at 11:46 am

    20. Miles
      Lindzen or someone of that level said that climate change has still not been proven in a lab under experimatental conditions.

      Everyone buying into AGW/Co2 including me by the way is buying the equivalent of a high beta stock thinking it is the same as a low vol short term bond. We are essentailly prepared to put a relatively large % of out net worth on a theory that still hasn’t been proved in a lab.

      Good one geniuses (including me).

      The ABC’s lateline carried an interview with two AGW “experts” ( the equivalent of an oncologist these days) who said we could create more jobs and become wealthier by taxing carbon. This is the swill that gets into public discourse without a murmour these days. Even the Quiggler would have trouble peddling this crap knowing it would get him into trouble with other blogs..

      I personally think we should be spending the money on women and song.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 11:51 am

    21. Jase, sinkers problem is that he views everything in black and white terms!!

      Bring Back EP at LP

      October 31, 2006 at 11:56 am

    22. Jason

      It is not hot air. It is not proven except on computer similations and real basic observations. They have used bristtle cones as markers for Christ sake.

      There is a FAIR possibilty of AGW. Even a strong possibility, but it is not a proven fact.

      So the only way to prceed is to do a probability estimate with payout ratios. But even here the problem is what are the factors to use.

      A carbon tax or any sort of tax wouldn’t stand up whereas a accelerated depreciation allowances and tax benefits would. Then is is a risk worth taking.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 11:56 am

    23. Steve E says:
      “I’m saying that we know that CO2 causes warming by trapping heat”

      No, we don’t know Steve. We think it happens but we don’t know for certain. Maybe the best scenario is to wait, spend big on better, more up to date AUDITED research and see what happens.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 12:00 pm

    24. A carbon tax or any sort of tax wouldn’t stand up whereas a accelerated depreciation allowances and tax benefits would. Then is is a risk worth taking.

      75% of Australia’s greenhouse gas output is produced by coal-fired power stations. Slightly less than half this amount is produced in NSW, where the owner/operator of said stations is a state utility.

      What they get in tax breaks they’d shunt straight to government in dividends. State-owned electricity and water utilities have been so drained of investment income through this plunder demand for excessive dividends that they have not invested in better technology for the better part of thirty years. A simple commitment to forgo dividends while investing in low-pollution solutions (not just filters but furnaces that return more heat energy as electricity and thus allows less pollution in the first place) would make a massive impact in this country’s greenhouse output, generate exportable technology, etc. Well, you gotta have your dreams.

      Andrew Elder

      October 31, 2006 at 12:23 pm

    25. Lindzen or someone of that level said that climate change has still not been proven in a lab under experimatental conditions.

      You’re going to need to expand on this jc.

      If Lindzen means that we haven’t built a new earth in a lab and altered the conditions, then yes, he’s got us there.

      But this is hardly a problem. Many branches of science don’t have the luxury of easy experimental systems. Studies on evolution, geology etc all take place under these conditions.

      Ken Miles

      October 31, 2006 at 12:29 pm

    26. jc, that CO2 traps heat (or more specifically, absorbs infrared radiation) is probably the most well known part of the equation.

      Anybody who does any infrared spectroscopy (a very common technique in chemistry) will be aware of the ir absorption of CO2. Every time you’re careless in your purging of your spectrometer, you get CO2 absorption bands contaminating your spectra.

      Ken Miles

      October 31, 2006 at 12:32 pm

    27. Jason, I quote, “The climate is a public good”. Now maybe, I’m being too pedantic, but the climate is naturally occuring. And I haven’t even started on the ‘social welfare function’ stuff, nor the future generations have an equal voice, despite the high levels of uncertainty Stern admits too. No, Jason. This is a hachet job. What are we to make of the argument they couldn’t run more complex models because of a lack of computer power! They want to spend up to A trillion dollars, but can’t get decent computers to run the simulations – puhleeze.

      The problem with all of this is the hysteria. Even if AGW were true, deindustrialisation is not the solution. A decline is living standards to not the solution.

      Sinclair Davidson

      October 31, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    28. Ken
      Neither of us are scientists, so I would have more of an eye to Lindzen saying something than you. If you had a PhD, taught at MIT, the best tech school in the world, I would listen.

      Take note of what Bird once said. 98% of people spouting on about AGW are not weather scientists. No one doubts there is carbon forcing. However there is plenty of discussion going on about its interaction with all the factors that impact on the atmosphere. Anyhow this isn’t the discussion we are supposed to have.

      You guys are friggin crazy you know. Very few countries possess large natural advantages that we do in the energy area ….enormous tracts of brown coal close to large cities. I recognize the fact it is low grade that can’t be exported because of it’s burn rate. However it more that meets our needs and we can take advantage of the fact that it is doesn’t carry a world export price.

      Some of you guys want to give away this natural advantage and go to nuke. Nuke fuel does carry a world price. So we would be giving away an absolute advantage ( an economic rarity in this scale) on essentially unproven speculation.

      This is is total madness. The one thing we can depend on is that it will cause a fall off in the national economic well being through high-energy prices.

      Rather than thinking about ways to become more efficient…eliminate height ceilings in our cities etc. (because he green nimbies have brainwashed a lot of us), we’re going to try and up the energy costs of average people by 40%. Purchasing better lighting could do the trick ….but no. Let’s just tax ourselves to death and make ourselves poorer.

      You know, I really don’t give much of a shit if my light bill goes up by 30–40%, but I do give a shit for people who can’t really afford these kinds of add on costs that haven’t been factored into their lifestyles…. nor has it ever been part of the social contract.

      Sometimes I just hate the callous elite and despise greenies so much I wish they expired though instantaneous combustion.

      Can any of you green party supporting clowns lead me to ANY, ANY green party policy in the manifesto that is not wealth destroying. Just one policy on their site.

      Elder
      Your problem is easy to solve. Force the govt. to sell the assets and then offer the deal. Public ownership of utilities is a bad joke in the 21 century.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    29. Here’s a deal
      It would possibly be cheaper for us to continue with our absolute advantage in coal and offer the Chinese and Indians a subsidy for a specified number of nuke plants. That way we can keep and maintain our absolute advantage ( 4 aces) and indirectly reduce C02.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 1:14 pm

    30. Sinclair Says:
      “The problem with all of this is the hysteria. Even if AGW were true, deindustrialisation is not the solution. A decline is living standards to not the solution. ”

      So, so true. in fact the opposite is true. We can only confront large issues when we are increasing our wealth.

      To be perfectly honest, 90% of green party supporters and hard elft environmentalists are generally speaking society’s losers , misfits and tax eaters.

      They should be the friggin last people we ever listen to.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 1:18 pm

    31. deindustrialisation is not the solution. A decline is living standards to not the solution

      No, its not. Nor are any but a few of the loopiest greens proposing this. This is a strawman you’re arguing against.

      From the report Summary

      The world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting
      growth and development. Changes in energy technologies and in the structure of
      economies have created opportunities to decouple growth from greenhouse gas
      emissions. Indeed, ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth.

      Steve Edney

      October 31, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    32. Language games, Sinclair. Get thee to a theological college.

      The climate is a public good in the sense that it is partly the outcome of individual interaction and a situation can arise where cost-creators do not bear the costs they create and benefit-producers do not reap the full benefits of their actions.

      Jason Soon

      October 31, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    33. Steve E says:

      ” Nor are any but a few of the loopiest greens proposing this. This is a strawman you’re arguing against.

      From the report Summary

      The world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting
      growth and development. Changes in energy technologies and in the structure of
      economies have created opportunities to decouple growth from greenhouse gas
      emissions. Indeed, ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth.”

      1. that ain’t true, steve. The Oz green party manifesto is 110% anti growth/ wealth destroying. They are the politcal represention of the green millenarian movement that we are forced to endure. Read their manifesto.

      2. The excerpt reads like the broken window fallacy. that’s all it is. It means that if we brake a window and replace it- no matter how economically useful, it will have a positive feedback in the GDP figs. True but fallacious as it ignores wealth destruction.

      That’s the difference

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    34. I hear what you’re saying, Jason. It is still very annoying. It is quite possible to make an argument for the environment, without the distortions, lies, and bullshit.

      Sinclair Davidson

      October 31, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    35. Jason

      Can you prove under court case conditions that someone has suffered damage as a result of AGW.

      Mind thlling me why the billionaire class action legal firms haven’t had this idea yet?

      Yoy are simp0ly speculating on the abuse of a public good while ignoring the benfits of the products and services we enjoy in an industrial society.

      Those who think they are caused damage as a result of AGW need to prove their case through evidentiary conditions.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 1:37 pm

    36. Force the govt. to sell the assets and then offer the deal. Public ownership of utilities is a bad joke in the 21 century.

      In NSW there’s one joke worse than public ownership, and that’s privatisation.

      In every state election since 1995 the Libs have promised privatisation, and look where it’s got them. Twice Carr tried to use a Labor landslide to privatise the utilities and twice his own party stymied him. Privatisation put Kennett where he is today, a position no incumbent or aspiring politician wishes to be in.

      Easy to say, hard to do.

      There are two potential groups of buyers: mates of the Premier and foreign multinationals, neither of whom deserve tax breaks.

      Taking public ownership as a given in NSW over the next 4 years, the most direct means of achieving greenhouse aims is to work on the NSW plants. Then they’d be more appealling to buyers, eh.

      Andrew Elder

      October 31, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    37. Good one Elder. we have a yawning trade deficit of 8% of GDP and you are hard edged when it come to foreign buyers.

      You have a printing press that makes Euros, Dollars and Yen of set days then?

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    38. Jc,

      By no means do I think the Green party have optimal policies for dealing with these issues. They are still a minor party, who’s real support is inflated by protest voters at elections.

      The Stern review is not promoting the green party policies. ITs promoting action through some sort of market based cap and trade policy and investment in technology. It doesn’t suggest that this is going to be cost free or positive for GDP, but just less costly than sitting around doing nothing.

      Steve Edney

      October 31, 2006 at 2:11 pm

    39. The lynch pin is that ‘collective action’ is required for it to work. Collective means the whole world not just the US or China, how will that take place? Every country’s systems will need to be audited and compliance notices issued by a central body – the UN?

      rog

      October 31, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    40. Neither of us are scientists, so I would have more of an eye to Lindzen saying something than you. If you had a PhD, taught at MIT, the best tech school in the world, I would listen.

      jc, actually, I’m two out three.

      But to address your point, while most people who talk about climate change aren’t experts, there is plenty of expert opinion out there. The IPCC gathers together large numbers of scientists and performs a large review of the scientific literature. The National Academy of Sciences has drawn together a number of experts to examine the last IPCC report and found it to be good. Other scientific societies have come out with statements supporting the scientific consensus behind climate change.

      Ken Miles

      October 31, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    41. Collective action worked for the montreal protocol to reduce CFCs.

      Steve Edney

      October 31, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    42. Steve
      It is also promoting Kyoto, a failed policy. Carbon contracts are falling in price not through efficiency gains in the EU but because they’re all cheating on the allowance caps. Stern and the rest of the gaggle are suggesting we go into this swamp, where would invaribly get raped by the less honest.

      And it is not less costly to to nothing. It is possibly the best all round route so we let technology do its thing.

      Why panic? Kyoto is priving to be a crock of dishoonest shit anyway with little to show and the almost 100% likelihood that no one is going to meet their cap.

      Take a look at this link and see what the future holds.

      http://www.techreview.com/channel/energy.aspx

      The green party may be attracting the protest vote but it is the political wing of the green movement. Everyone of their policies is wealth or GDP negative. They’re a disgrace.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 2:32 pm

    43. Yes there has been problems with the Caps system, most likely because the intial emission were overestimated, but its the first attempt to try it out there’s going to be teething problems.

      Technology will do its thing, I agree, but without price signals there’s no reason to think it just won’t make carbon energy cheaper rather than develop alternatives.

      Steve Edney

      October 31, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    44. Steve

      yes the CFC program may have worked. I really don’t know enough about it. However It was only a tiny and substitutable groups of chemicals. That was real easy

      However this deal is truly big. And it is also damaged goods where they can’t even price or economically account for the broken windows fallacy.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 2:40 pm

    45. But the point is its all bullshit.

      This fellow has taken uncritically his projections from the computer projections of the UN offshoot the IPCC amongst others.

      This doesn’t even begin to be a counter-argument against the non-panic-guys.

      Nothing has changed in the last 48 hours. Stern just summarised the loudist of the panic-merchants without ever asking himself if it wasn’t all just bullshit momentum run wild.

      This is a pretty bad development on the one hand. Since its a TRI-PARTISON deal now in Britain. All three parties are serious about this and have all taken the panic side of the argument.

      So we will have this carry-on get a blast of extra momentum in the Angloshere.

      The youthful leader of the opposition, who appears to have quite forgotten what party he is in, now wants an ARMS RACE between the parties on who is going to go more overboard on this global warming business.

      How about an ARMS RACE in ARMS?

      His country is after all at war.

      How about an ARMS RACE in cuts to non-defense spending or in compressing, condensing and eliminating regulations?

      The panic people didn’t have much of an argument yesterday and nothings changed in the release of the Stern report. Because it represents a very good summary of all the bad arguments that are out and about there.

      For starters it talks about “CLIMATE CHANGE”

      This is a mistake because the climate always changes.

      The choices are between different levels of industrial CO2 release.

      Not between status and change.

      And that basic flawed beginning in his report leads to a radiation out of bad reasoning from the centre.

      The panic guys had nothing 48 hours ago.

      And they have not added anything with this report.

      Now the argument is this. That global warming will put costs on us between 5 and 20% of GDP……………

      Yet mitigating against this climate change will cost only 1% of GDP…………

      Well WOO HOO. Money for nothing. What a profit hey?

      We cannot lose. We, for a tiny investment of more then we currently spend on foreign aid we get a 3-19% bonus.

      Now this is just silly. We will not stop climate change. We will only get the cost, and we will not get any benefits.

      Its worse then that. We will miss out on the benefits of weaning off oil more quickly and of higher CO2 levels in the air which stimulates the natural world.

      But its worse then that because this is nothing less then an excuse to set up and expand the role of international bodies in our life.

      We do not have time or money to be screwing around with all these international bodies.

      Its a loss of our sovereignty… In practice these bodies just throw nets and small threads over us and paralyse our actions.

      And those who might tend to be our enemies flout these outfits yet gain influence within them.

      Who do we blame for this bullshit momentum getting so very far out of hand…. So far out of hand that conservatives are being bludgeoned into going along with it.

      Bludgeoned into going along with it and even FORCEFULLY advocating a new tax (at a bad time) if only to pre-empt hateful government spending programs.

      Here we can see one of the ways this bullshit momentum becomes bi-partisan. It would be indeed less wasteful to simply practice tax-substitution towards carbon-tax and forcefully oppose any spending programs. Since this would be neutral in terms of government depredation.

      Thats how it would be if CO2 was a bad thing. But the fact is its a good thing. And by pushing for the tax (to pre-empt the spending) we are locking in the dubious science AS A BI-PARTISAN DEAL.

      What we need to do instead is push against this current until the current starts running the other way.

      The starting point in this debate is to realise we are in an ice age.

      Now did Stern start with this basic truth?

      I don’t THINKSO.

      Did he mention that we have been in an ice age for 39 million years and that it has been particularly severe in the last 3.5 million years.

      No I don’t think thats his starting point. Because I started reading his report and he didn’t start with that at all.

      He instead started with our terrific climate as the given. And then talked as if any change was to be blamed on CO2 release.

      Whereas we know that this planet in this time period (speaking in the millions of years) is too bloody cold.

      Stern has brought nothing new to all this. He has just summarised the bad craziness thats out there.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 2:45 pm

    46. Steve

      They’re cheating with the cap system because that is what governments would do. If its germany, better to let the frogs take the hit. if its the frogs let Italians cop it and so on. it’s totally flawed.

      “Technology will do its thing, I agree, but without price signals there’s no reason to think it just won’t make carbon energy cheaper rather than develop alternatives.’

      Yes, buit do it through incentives. You don’t need the stick. Just offer the carrots.

      Gradually remove all taxes on new fuel efficent cars but leave the others alone. New techology is going to be expensive at the beginning because of capital recoupment. In say 10 years have no tax on new cars. None.

      Offer the inducements I suggested earlier for energy production.

      Award billion dollar prizes to the first car maker that can sell x amount of new extra efficient mototr Vs.

      The idea is to first do no harm with extra taxes when you can change behavior with inducments. We have a budget surplus of 16 billion., so why are we even thinking about adding to the tax bill.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 2:52 pm

    47. We have to go back to the core argument.

      Why are you guys panicing?

      What is it that you are basing this panic on?

      Do you know for sure we are not going to get another glaciation as we always have in the past?

      Why do you think you know this?

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    48. Great points GB. All of them.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    49. you are hard edged when it come to foreign buyers

      No. I’m attempting to show that a position that looks politically simple (selling publicly-owned utilities) isn’t. I have also posited that using the current – and yes, not preferable – predicament of public ownership is the best means of taking significant action against greenhouse output. Focusing on privatisation ahead of greenhouse is putting the cart before the horse, not just environmentally but economically.

      Big hits on the deficit by selling big public assets don’t work anyway. Never have.

      Andrew Elder

      October 31, 2006 at 2:58 pm

    50. Has anyone got a computer model predicting catastrophe in the future…….

      And when you back-test the program it predicts the climate changes of the past?

      Anyone got one of those?

      Now I don’t think you have.

      Has anyone even got a computer model program predicting catastrophe in the future where it clear to the laity what the assumptions of the model are?

      Now I doubt that you have even that.

      The panic guys just don’t HAVE anything.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 2:59 pm

    51. “The report argues that the cost of curbing emissions could be kept down to around 1 per cent of global GDP every year while it would open up new business opportunities, by increasing demand for new products and financial services worth hundreds of billions a year.”

      Sounds like Paul Nortons broken window fallacy Jive.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    52. Cambria sez:

      “The green party may be attracting the protest vote but it is the political wing of the green movement. Everyone of their policies is wealth or GDP negative. They’re a disgrace.”

      You are possibly the dopiest grease-monkey I’ve ever known, Josephine.

      When the Greens controlled the Yarra City Council in Melbourne’s inner suburbs they paid back council debt faster than any other council in Victoria.

      melaleuca

      October 31, 2006 at 3:06 pm

    53. Oh well thats the proof then.

      The experiences of a single council.

      You eeeediot Munn.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 3:08 pm

    54. Elder
      The reason why public ownership is popular is because this country is essentially a socialist haven and the right has not sold its story well. Neither have they handled sales properly when the money should have gone back to the real owners in a more direct way … instead these idiots glomming the cash and funding new recurring expenses like labor governments trying to hire their own consituencies or conservatives giving farmers undeserved goodies.It s racket.

      If you don’t want to sell the farm when we’re running a 8% C/a you’d better explain how we are going to fund it because I’m all friggin ears.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 3:16 pm

    55. He we go. Here’s munnchkin ready to prove what I said and about to go racist on us.

      Munn you dickhead, you’re living proof what the green movement represents and in all honesty your smarter than the others.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    56. “I have also posited that using the current – and yes, not preferable – predicament of public ownership is the best means of taking significant action against greenhouse output.”

      No thats just stupid.

      Government has its hands fill winning elections, clarifying property rights, aiming at more perfect justice and being obsessive about military capacity.

      They are not to be distracted with such silliness as you suggest.

      What they have to do is get the light-touch regulation right.

      “”I have also posited that using the current – and yes, not preferable – predicament of public ownership is the best means of taking significant action against greenhouse output.”

      You see this third parties? You see how this manic hatred for the lord of life, this Prince of the natural world, this demonic gas… THIS CO2….

      You see how this manic hatred for CO2 distracts us from taking care of business and getting things done right.

      This crapola is nothing less then our version of what the leaders of Constantinople were up to.

      That is to say arguing about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin…. Even as the Turk was at the gates.

      We simply have to get away from the idea that modern man is more enlightened then these guys. We are just as stupid and I’m speaking about you out there and not for myself.

      Because I could have told them the answer to that question. How many angels can fit on the head of a pin……….?

      The answer is 0….. or possibly you might have a trick answer of 1.

      Because everyone fucking knows that angels are big bastards with gigantic wings who get in restling matches with our guys.

      So one supposes that if he was hovering over the pin with great dexterity you might say the answer is 1.

      But normally you would say he’s too fucking big to fit on a pin.

      And this illustrates the point of what these NON-ISSUES or NON-THREATS or SPECULATIVE THREATS are about.

      They are about not coming to grips with the real problems that are out there.

      The real problems are getting put in the too hard basket and the pseudo or (being as generous as I can be) speculative problems are obsessing folks who ought to be manning the gates and facing the Turk head on.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 3:20 pm

    57. Whether the issues are speculative or not is not the issue, there exists a sufficient body of legitimate public concern that needs to be addressed satisfactorily by the elected reps. If they dont, the other lot will get in.

      So how to best deal with the situation?

      rog

      October 31, 2006 at 3:46 pm

    58. You start telling people they are full of shit and see what they come up with.

      If they don’t have a model that even back-tests they don’t have squat.

      Because they are basing this all on computer modelling.

      So if they don’t have a single one that works what have they got?

      The public has concerns yes. But there concerns come from the sheer weight of propaganda.

      We can start challenging the science. Start telling these tax-eaters that they aren’t scientists. That they don’t deserve to wash a scientists feet. And see what they come up with.

      I mean we aren’t all politicians. We don’t all face election this year.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 4:04 pm

    59. “Human induced global warming is more or less an accepted fact. ”

      Bollocks!!

      Ever heard of Richard Lindzen? The man is one of the most highly regarded climate scientists there is, and he says that humans are not contributing to global warming.

      http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

      Rococo Liberal

      October 31, 2006 at 4:32 pm

    60. I’m sorry GMB and Rococco Liberal. You’re on the losing side. AGW is real. My perception of the science is that 95% of economists agree that the debate is over.

      whyisitso

      October 31, 2006 at 4:47 pm

    61. GMB
      your position is coming apart at the seams. On the one hand you’ve been going all over the interwebs trumpeting the claim that global warming exists but it is good. now you’re saying there’s doubt that it does exist?

      you’re all over the place, bud.

      Jason Soon

      October 31, 2006 at 4:58 pm

    62. “I’m sorry GMB and Rococco Liberal. You’re on the losing side. AGW is real. ”

      You fucking tool.

      YOu fucking lying idiot.

      You moron.

      Can you find ANYWHERE on the internet where I’ve said that AGW isn’t real?

      What a fucking tool you are.

      It IS real. And thats good.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 5:02 pm

    63. “GMB
      your position is coming apart at the seams.”

      No it isn’t. You are full of shit. But do go ahead. Do explain yourself.

      ” On the one hand you’ve been going all over the interwebs trumpeting the claim that global warming exists but it is good.”

      Indeed. CO2 will A Priori have SOME warming effect. And yes it is good. And obviously so.

      “….now you’re saying there’s doubt that it does exist?”

      No I never once said this. You are full of shit.

      “you’re all over the place, bud.”

      No I’m not.

      You are.

      I’ve been perfectly consistent and no-one has refuted me on this.

      But it would be good if someone did.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 5:04 pm

    64. In that case you’re not very good at expressing yourself. whyisitso seemed to think on the basis of your comments here that you had suddenly become a denialist, and so did i.

      Jason Soon

      October 31, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    65. No I’m VERY good at expressing myself.

      And no I didn’t once change my story. And you should have known better.

      CO2 blocks the radiation out more then it blocks in. So clearly A PRIORI it will add to warming.

      I’ve never said differently. Nor would I be likely to.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    66. “Did they cite the Max Plank institute scientists who reckon the sun is hotter now then in any time in 1,150 years?”

      Yes, I’m afraid I misunderstood that point. I thought you were arguing that the current warming is mainly caused by the extra heat from the sun rather than mankind pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere. Mea maxima culpa.

      That wasn’t the point of my comment however.

      whyisitso

      October 31, 2006 at 5:32 pm

    67. exactly whyisitso.

      what is the point of that Max Planck reference? sounds like you were trying to have it both ways, fella.

      Jason Soon

      October 31, 2006 at 5:34 pm

    68. “I thought you were arguing that the current warming is mainly caused by the extra heat from the sun rather than mankind pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere.”

      Well on a year to year basis it is.

      And there can be no doubt about it.

      Supposing that someone was trying to say that industrial CO2 was more important then the sun in temperature rises.

      Well that person would have to stipulate what beginning and ending decade we are talking about.

      CO2 is a more constant, slowly rising factor.

      On a year to year basis the sun is going to far outweigh CO2 changes.

      CO2 is rising about .4% per year.

      The extra heat that this generates isn’t going to be statistically significant over a single year.

      But it might have a very large effect over very many decades and centuries.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 5:38 pm

    69. The Max Planck reference is VERY important don’t you think?

      When someone says that the sun is not important to the heat of the atmosphere you don’t so much want to check his credentials as question his sanity.

      This is where dumb-science-workers really show their sloppiness. To say that CO2 is more important then the sun and not bothering to define EXACTLY what the hell it is they mean about that.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 5:42 pm

    70. “exactly whyisitso.
      what is the point of that Max Planck reference? sounds like you were trying to have it both ways, fella.”

      Explain yourself Soon.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    71. “But it might have a very large effect over very many decades and centuries.”

      But in that case wouldn’t the effect of solar variations be fairly irrelevant to the main argument that AGW (Anthropomorphic GW) is what mankind must counter?

      whyisitso

      October 31, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    72. Oops I think that word is “anthropogenic”

      whyisitso

      October 31, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    73. No it wouldn’t be irrelevant. Because its just assumed that we are going to have a heating catastrophe.

      Where is the evidence for this.

      And the computer programs that predict a heating catastrophe….. Do they simultaneously load in a downturn in the suns radiation??

      Who knows.

      The dumb scientists aren’t telling us.

      Whats irrelevant is this ANTHROPMORPHIC JIVE…….

      Its borderline faux-religious craziness.

      It is saying that you and I have transgressed and we face a severe comeuppance from Gaia.

      Its real crazed stuff.

      What’s relevant is the balance of risks.

      Always in the past the risk was cooling.

      They haven’t made that great a case that this has changed.

      Sure it will be warmer then it otherwise would be.

      But since otherwise we would be facing another glaciation then the news that it will be warmer then otherwise is a mighty fine thing and praise be to capitalism.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 5:50 pm

    74. Munn

      Regarding your racist contributions targeted at me…..

      Yes, I am of middle class Italian heritage. I am not proud of it, and neither am I ashamed of it. I am simply indifferent to it. In other words I couldn’t care less and I consider myself a sovereign individual and thankful I was born in the west a great gift that people, take for granted.. I am also extremely proud of my family for coming here and achieving a great deal without a penny to start… again nothing to do with race.

      Let’s get one thing straight. I don’t measure people on race or like that as I treat people as individuals.

      Having said that, I consider you nothing but a low rent individual. A fat tax eating retard when it comes to economics and related subjects. What’s hilarious is that you actually think you do.!

      I hope you understand this clearly!

      I am better than you in all ways. I know more than you do. In fact other than knowing the names of a few trees and shrubs there is nothing in this universe you know that I don’t know of which I know more. I have a happier life than you do; I scored more chicks than you (equal in gender). If I were gay I would even score more guys. I’m better looking than you. I am better educated than you are. I am also smarter than you could ever hope to be. I have nicer friends than you and I have a nicer personality than you. I also have more money than you. I like better things than you. I am also funnier than you.

      In other words I am superior to you in every respect other than knowing the names of a few trees.

      So you continue making racist comments about me anytime you like. Feel free to do so. But just remember where you stand. You tax eating doofus.

      Now Munnchkin, telling us that the green council paid back debt tells us sweet all how they have performed.

      You need to look at scores of measurements such as efficiency reports to get a better handle on how they have done. What were the debt ratios before? Have they assisted development in the area? It could very be that they paid back the debt when they didn’t need to if they could have used he money wisely. Paying the money back could actually be a negative because it may mean they have very few ideas on where they want to go and are actually acting out their millenarian fantasy in real life

      So before you go off spouting how great it is they back the debt have a few more facts on hand, you silly fool. It could also mean that they fluked it after all a broken clock is right a couple times a day.

      Munn, take look at their manifesto again. There is nothing in that slagheap that would improve the economic welfare of the nation. IT was a huge negative.

      Some advice
      You’re very good at getting stuck into Muslim fundis ,stick with that , nimbus.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 5:58 pm

    75. Don’t worry Birdy. Actually I’m a skeptic myself, which is why I made that smart-arse comment 61 about 95% of economists.

      It’s so easy to stir you up is all. I’d sure like to see you wound up when you’re pissed. Hey maybe you are!

      whyisitso

      October 31, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    76. Birdy sez:

      “No I’m VERY good at expressing myself.”

      Joey Cambria sez:

      “I am better than you in all ways. I know more than you do.”

      Is there a clinical term for retarded librarians with an inflated sense of their own competence?

      ps. Joey, it’s “bristle cone” not “bristtle cone” and it’s “simulation” not “similation”.

      Wad da problim, Joey, no speakka da Inglish?

      melaleuca

      October 31, 2006 at 6:16 pm

    77. Munn
      typos aren’t the problem, you low rent taxeating slob.

      I obviously was able to convey what i wanted to say.

      So if your only problem is typos, I guess you agree on everything else

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 6:22 pm

    78. Munn.

      Not big on the science are you Munn.

      Lets see some science Munn.

      GMB

      October 31, 2006 at 6:37 pm

    79. Joey, old girl, you wrote “bristtle cone” instead of “bristle cone” twice. You are obviously an illiterate momma’s boy in spite of the fact that you were brought up in a privileged middle-class home.

      Admit it, you are dumber than a maggoty old bag of dog droppings.

      Lucky for you this country doesn’t practice eugenics otherwise you would’ve been liquidated at birth.

      melaleuca

      October 31, 2006 at 6:40 pm

    80. Alright JC and Munn
      Cut it out – that’s enough bickering. Get back on topic like Bird suggested (funny I have to hold Bird up as an example of decorum for a change)
      All subsequent insults between you two will be Sooned.

      Jason Soon

      October 31, 2006 at 6:43 pm

    81. Jase
      Where did I actually insult her? all I said was there is not standard where I am not superior after her racist diatribe. The old girl can take that.

      I then jut politely informed her that he would make an inferior security analyst which is not a surprise.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 7:13 pm

    82. Ok Jase:

      Lets try this approach

      Munnchkin, please give us one point in the green party manifesto that cannot be torn to shreds by a 11 grade economics student? Just one.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 7:18 pm

    83. You guys should leave off bullying Steve Munn, you know you are superior to him and you know he is eager to prove you right.

      Show some humanity, some comradeship, some brotherly love (yecch)

      rog

      October 31, 2006 at 9:21 pm

    84. Heres monbiots plan for a cleaner greener future;

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1935562,00.html

      1. increase target reductions of CO2 immediately.

      2. Issue personal CO2 quotas.

      3. Introduce a new set of strict energy-efficiency building regulations,

      4. Ban the sale of incandescent lightbulbs, patio heaters, garden floodlights and other wasteful and unnecessary technologies.

      5. Redeploy money now earmarked for new nuclear missiles towards a massive investment in energy generation and distribution eg offshore floating windfarms and hydrogen pipeline.

      6. New national bus network on dedicated lanes which never leave the motorways

      7. Oblige all petrol stations to supply leasable electric car batteries.

      8. Abandon the road-building and road-widening programme, and spend the money on tackling climate change.

      9. Freeze and then reduce UK airport capacity.

      10. Legislate for the closure of all out-of-town superstores, and their replacement with a warehouse and delivery system.

      “Climate change is not just a moral question: it is the moral question of the 21st century. There is one position even more morally culpable than denial. That is to accept that it’s happening and that its results will be catastrophic, but to fail to take the measures needed to prevent it.”

      rog

      October 31, 2006 at 9:43 pm

    85. Rog

      every single one of those is going to get us into heaps of trouble. The last things you want to do is adversely change efficiencies, regulate travel and raise taxes.

      We know AGW is Possibly happening, but we don’t know for sure. If it is happening it’s a low probability that it is a disaster.

      What’s the worse thing that can happen. We die out as species and another takes over. Well it’s not the end of the world if cockroachman appears on the scene in a million years ( pun intended)

      If we have to go backwards as a species it would be simply better that we all died out. I wouldn’t want to imagine life for future generations if it didn’t mean even better wiz bang gadgets. If life for us has to remain still, we should not want any part of it and just let ourselves die out.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 9:53 pm

    86. Goddamned, that Moonbat is on a roll there:

      “Freeze and then reduce UK airport capacity”

      How about we just cancel all these wanky UN summits? Would that help?

      Jason Soon

      October 31, 2006 at 10:03 pm

    87. Rog

      Just to clarify. is the last para yours or moonbat’s? Sorry?

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 10:06 pm

    88. Are you insulting poor old Rog, JC? Of course it’s Moonbat’s.

      Jason Soon

      October 31, 2006 at 10:10 pm

    89. Shit. Sorry Rog.. Real sorry. I thought you had quinnined up or something like that. i was too polite to call the medics for a strait jacket.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 10:16 pm

    90. Moonbat alright. Annoys me as much as the AGW skeptics. Takes a report that suggests a number of very reasonable policy approaches that woudln’t be particuarly costly and turns it into a farcial list of pet peeves and effectively white ants the cause he’s trying to promote.

      Steve Edney

      October 31, 2006 at 10:20 pm

    91. has anyone read the stern report yet.

      i got up to the bit about the effect of climate change on gender equality and i had to start looking away

      drscroogemcduck

      October 31, 2006 at 10:33 pm

    92. Duck

      Really, he’s talking about gender equality????
      What page is that?

      That’s friggin hilarious. We’re actually spending time talking about a report that talks about gender equality???? Did he contextualize gender equality with medieval warm period.

      This is a scream they were even talking about this crap in parliament and I bet if they had readi it this would have come up.

      No one in the world has read this thing and except stern although that’s doubtful and we’re ready to spend bug bucks.

      Tell me the page and I’ll tell my local consevative member of parliament to refer to this.

      This is hilarous.

      jc

      October 31, 2006 at 10:39 pm

    93. McDuck,

      I got past that bit all right, but when it started getting stuck into Keith Windschuttle, black armbands and the Quadrant crowd, well I’d had enuff! See yer tomorrow.

      whyisitso

      October 31, 2006 at 10:47 pm

    94. That moonbots ideas follow pretty directly from this idea that more CO2 is going to reduce our GDP by 20%.

      Compromising with these clowns is just as nutty.

      The fact is they haven’t come up with the science. Why turn down free fertiliser?

      A lot of people look like they are ready to roll over to these guys on the basis of sheer weight of bogus claims alone.

      We will be more successful spending the money on Raptors rather then this global catastrophe JIVE.

      GMB

      November 1, 2006 at 4:22 am

    95. Moonbat is on a roll, sport is killing the planet;

      http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,,1931004,00.html

      One of the reasons why so little has been done to stop climate change is that everyone makes an exception for themselves. We can all agree, for example, that there are too many cars on the roads, while insisting that we cannot possibly leave ours at home. The same problem applies to businesses: the people who run them might agree that collective action urgently needs to be taken, but unfortunately their sector is just too important and its requirements too demanding. This seems to be the prevailing ethos at the moment in sport.

      I don’t want to be a killjoy and I recognise that many sports are considered a matter of life and death by their fans. But climate change really is a matter of life and death….

      …..Even sports such as football and athletics that are inherently harmless cause major environmental effects, thanks to the transport of spectators….

      …..In August, the Evening Standard reported that most of the eco-features that were supposed to have made the London Olympics the ‘greenest Games ever’ have been quietly dropped. Instead of using 100 per cent renewable energy to power the Olympic Village, the real figure will now be more like 10 per cent….

      rog

      November 1, 2006 at 5:36 am

    96. chapter 4: implications of climate change on growth and development

      http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/8EB/73/Chapter_4_Implications_of_climate_change_for_development_final_version_on_web_P1-71.pdf

      page 23.

      Gender inequalities will likely worsen with climate change. Workloads and responsibilities
      such as collecting water, fuel and food will grow and become more time consuming in light of
      greater resource scarcity. This will allow less time for education or participation in marketbased
      work. A particular burden will be imposed on those households that are short of labour,
      further exacerbated if the men migrate in times of extreme stress leaving women vulnerable
      to impoverishment, forced marriage, labour exploitation and trafficking.112 Women are ‘overrepresented’
      in agriculture and the informal economy, sectors that will be hardest hit by
      climate change. This exposure is coupled with a low capacity to adapt given their unequal
      access to resources such as credit and transport. Women are also particularly vulnerable to
      the effects of natural disasters with women and children accounting for more than 75% of
      displaced persons following natural disasters.

      they even have a graph of how many children are going to be killed by climate change. i shit you not.

      drscroogemcduck

      November 1, 2006 at 7:24 am

    97. Maybe I was wrong to take this report so seriously. By all means do a sober analysis of costs and benefits as best you can but this kind of projection is really taking models on faith a bit too much …

      Jason Soon

      November 1, 2006 at 7:28 am

    98. The section begins with outlining the UN milenium development goals, which 189 countries have agree to push (including the united states).

      One of these is “Promote gender equality and empower women” another is “Reduce child mortality” The section outlines how climate change will likely impact these goals.

      It’s not the most important thing with regarding the impact, but it’s also a couple of paragraphs in a 700 page document. It hardly discredits the document.

      Steve Edney

      November 1, 2006 at 8:59 am

    99. I know that it’s pointless to bother engaging with GMB, but I correct this statement:

      Did the Stern report cite the Max Plank institute?

      Did they cite the Max Plank institute scientists who reckon the sun is hotter now then in any time in 1,150 years?

      Well he might have. But I don’t think he did.

      What happens when the sun stops shining that brightly and goes into another cycle?

      This article details the latest study into the sun, with the money quote being:

      “This basically rules out the Sun as the cause of global warming,” says Dr Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany.

      Ken Miles

      November 1, 2006 at 9:10 am

    100. I also just noticed he has a whole chapter on , university lesbians, crossdressers, gays and the effects of global warming their lifestyles.

      Global warming… it effects everything.

      jc

      November 1, 2006 at 9:49 am

    101. Can I just note to argue that one shouldn’t adopt policies that will cut policies until other countries do the same is as stupid as to argue one doesn’t cut tariffs until all countries do the same also.

      Bring Back EP at LP

      November 1, 2006 at 10:01 am

    102. No it’s not Homer. Tariff cuts are to our benefit. Cuts in reductions aren’t necessarily so since what matters is the STOCK of CO2 not the FLOW.

      Jason Soon

      November 1, 2006 at 10:03 am

    103. Any of you guys know if Stern is related to Howard Stern the NYC shock jock? Not pertinent, just curious.

      Jase

      Howard’s brother has a chapter on AGW and the consequences of trade tarriffs and the gay community in Chicgo. It’s a very complete document actually as it disccusses almost relationships and and conditions.

      It even talks about how people with beards ie Quiggin, will have to make adjustments to their lives as a result of Global warming. I never realized that it was so full of content.

      Supermarket shopping and AGW,dog shampooing. It’s all in there.

      jc

      November 1, 2006 at 10:14 am

    104. point taken Jase.

      I would assume the stock would reduce in Australia together with the advantage of OZ companies being the in the position of first movers.

      This area like tariffs would show third world countries we don’t just talk the talk but walk the walk.
      Just go back and wonder why a certain smallish Minister of trade negotiation under Fraser was never taken seriously.

      Bring Back EP at LP

      November 1, 2006 at 10:48 am

    105. Howard has managed this issue brilliantly. Post-Stern, the talk is now about a new Kyoto that constitutes a real – rather than a faith-based – difference. Tony Blair – with Brown and the Sternster beside him – said as much yesterday as the report was launched. Howard is bang on the money – old Kyoto was rubbish and has already failed. It will have no effect whatsoever on emissions. Australia’s stance was correct.

      C.L.

      November 1, 2006 at 11:59 am

    106. Yes, JH/MacFarlane today announced measures that will reduce CO2 in tons and exceed kyoto goals x4 stemming from agreement by AP6 ready to start now and without having to go down the tax road.

      They have left Wayne Swan and co eating dust

      rog

      November 1, 2006 at 12:47 pm

    107. That’s not right CL. Unless there is a program which takes care a university lesbians and bearded campus intellectuals, we’re done for. The cost of AGW will consume us.

      Sternmeister is also a international aid expert. He told us in his report that we need to increase aid …. an obvious AGW related subject.

      jc

      November 1, 2006 at 12:49 pm

    108. Now let me get this right.
      Adopting Kyoto will harm Australia’s competitiveness. However we are now going to exceed that target which won’t.

      We shouldn’t adopt a market based carbon trading system that even albanese advocates but rely on Government funding in this area.

      We do not say Climate change is happenning nor do we deny it is happpening.

      Yeah it is a winning strategy by gingo

      Bring Back EP at LP

      November 1, 2006 at 12:57 pm

    109. I sent it to Blair who has posted Sterns sensitivities to gender inequalities. This make its way round the RWDB blogs in NY minute.

      It’s hilarious.

      He’s posted it but I emailed back informing him that credit should also go to the duck.

      jc

      November 1, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    110. “We do not say Climate change is happenning nor do we deny it is happpening.”

      You fucking ignorant moron.

      Climate Change ALWAYS happens.

      What?

      Did you think the climate stayed the same all the time? And that only the malign influence of manking could change it?

      Fucking lefties HATE science. And they cannot STAND what it is science tells us.

      GMB

      November 1, 2006 at 3:56 pm

    111. “I know that it’s pointless to bother engaging with GMB, but I correct this statement:”

      Now Miles don’t be a fucking idiot.

      The Max Planc institute has told us that the sun is shining more strongly now then it has in 1,150 years.

      So obviously the sun is important.

      Now you explain to me how the sun is not important in your own words.

      It will be clear that you are being a complete idiot.

      GMB

      November 1, 2006 at 4:00 pm

    112. This from a guy who could not front up to the Unfair pay commission and discuss labor reform as an economist.

      Keep voting for him guys. keep voting for him.

      jc

      November 1, 2006 at 4:04 pm

    113. ““This basically rules out the Sun as the cause of global warming,” says Dr Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Germany.”

      Now I keep telling you guys but I’m not sure whether you believe me. The poor reasoning skills of our current crop of science workers.

      Here Miles merely quotes some idiot making a RIDICULOUS FUCKING ASSERTION.

      No attempt at actual science was made by Miles in the reporting of another idiot making a stupid assumption.

      GMB

      November 1, 2006 at 4:06 pm

    114. Graeme
      It happens to be the very same source you were citing in support of your claim.

      Jason Soon

      November 1, 2006 at 4:08 pm

    115. The reasoning is that right wingers are religious fundamentalists who blindly believe in creation and deny the evidence of evolution and lefties are logical secularists who believe in science, darwin and the sanctity of life on earth.

      Sorta cuts out a whole lotta people.

      rog

      November 1, 2006 at 4:09 pm

    116. re 113 JC

      rog

      November 1, 2006 at 4:10 pm

    117. Well I’m a creationist when it comes to the quiggler. Evolution couldn’t have swung that one. That’s definitely out of a lab.

      jc

      November 1, 2006 at 4:11 pm

    118. Yeah well even the leftist SCIENTISTS seem to be anti-science. In that they hate it where the chips fall. And they have no appreciation of human reason.

      I mean what USE have a got for some fucker who some leftist has allegedly quoted making an assertion.

      My understanding is out there. And if Miles can show me where my reasoning is unsound then its something he is choosing to keep to himself.

      GMB

      November 1, 2006 at 4:12 pm

    119. This demonstrates just how pointless it is to bother with GMB, but for the record, the Max Planck didn’t simple assert that the sun plays no role in the recent warming, he (along with others) conducted a large study into the role of the sun. The study covered a number of different proxies for solar variation including sunspots and isotope data. He certainly didn’t just make an assumption.

      All of this was in the article which I linked to, but GMB clearly didn’t bother to read it before mouthing off.

      And now I’ll wait for the next round of content free abuse.

      Ken Miles

      November 1, 2006 at 4:14 pm

    120. “Graeme
      It happens to be the very same source you were citing in support of your claim.”

      So what?

      He quoted an assertion. Where is the REASONING.

      Are they now DENYING that the sun is giving us more radiation then anytime in the last 1,150 years?

      Have they changed their minds?

      Have the leftists GOT TO THEM?

      What you say Jason is just irrelevant.

      GMB

      November 1, 2006 at 4:15 pm

    121. Yeah well you deserve content-free abuse. Because you fucking gave me content-free shit AGAIN?

      Are you so pathetic that you cannot put together the slightest reasoned argument?

      Now is the Max Plank institute now BACK-TRACKING on their information on the strength of the suns radiation?

      Yes or no?

      You see you’ve got no argument.

      Make a reasoned argument you fucking idiot.

      You don’t even seem to know what one is.

      GMB

      November 1, 2006 at 4:20 pm

    122. Ken
      If you don’t wish to answer GMB you can always direct your answer to me. I won’t swear at you.

      It is important that we get to the bottom. Has the insitute gone back on what they said?

      jc

      November 1, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    123. another thing i found interesting about the stern report.

      they found all these issues with water supply in 2100 after the HORRIFIC WARMING

      but there was no analysis of where the water would be coming from in 100 year time!

      and there was no mention of DESALINATION

      once DESALINATION becomes cheaper i expect governments would start preferring it over DAMS because it seems to have less of a NIMBY problem.

      drscroogemcduck

      November 1, 2006 at 6:55 pm

    124. Duck
      MIT has come up with a filter system that cut the cost of desalination by 80% through a nanotech filter system.

      See this. http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16977&ch=nanotech

      jc

      November 1, 2006 at 7:23 pm

    125. i had a look and found this article that had desalination at 1.7 – 5x the cost of getting water out of rivers for London in 2004.

      http://www.waterconserve.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?Linkid=32904

      so with something that cut the cost by 80% you are looking at something that could seriously compete

      rising power costs might be a slight problem though

      drscroogemcduck

      November 1, 2006 at 7:54 pm

    126. It is important that we get to the bottom. Has the insitute gone back on what they said?

      Hi jc,

      As GMB hasn’t given an in-depth reference to which Max Planck study he is referring to, I can’t be certain. But I suspect that he is referring to the work of Sami Solanki (who is from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research).

      Solanki’s research has been badly distorted by climate change sceptics (Andrew Bolt is one Australian example of people who have cherry picked his work), so it is better to read the original papers rather than rely on media descriptions. Basically he finds that the sun is at historical high levels of solar output, and that there is evidence that it has effected climate in the past. But he also finds that the sun isn’t a big player in the recent warming (over the last thirty years, the sun’s output has been relatively steady). It is the last conclusion that has been ignored by climate sceptics.

      The study which I referred to (which is also includes authors from Max Planck – but different researchers) suggests that the sun’s past contribution to warming is less than commonly attributed. And that it is had a very small role in warming in the recent period.

      The following abstract (from Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970? by S. K. Solanki and N. A. Krivova [J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 108, No. A5, 1200, 2003]) gives a good overview of Sol’s research:

      The magnitude of the Sun’s influence on climate has been a subject of intense debate.
      Estimates of this magnitude are generally based on assumptions regarding the forcing due
      to solar irradiance variations and climate modeling. This approach suffers from
      uncertainties that are difficult to estimate. Such uncertainties are introduced because the
      employed models may not include important but complex processes or mechanisms or
      may treat these in too simplified a manner. Here we take a more empirical approach. We
      employ time series of the most relevant solar quantities, the total and UV irradiance
      between 1856 and 1999 and the cosmic rays flux between 1868 and 1999. The time series
      are constructed using direct measurements wherever possible and reconstructions based on
      models and proxies at earlier times. These time series are compared with the climate
      record for the period 1856 to 1970. The solar records are scaled such that statistically the
      solar contribution to climate is as large as possible in this period. Under this assumption
      we repeat the comparison but now including the period 1970–1999. This comparison
      shows without requiring any recourse to modeling that since roughly 1970 the solar
      influence on climate (through the channels considered here) cannot have been dominant.
      In particular, the Sun cannot have contributed more than 30% to the steep temperature
      increase that has taken place since then, irrespective of which of the three considered
      channels is the dominant one determining Sun-climate interactions: tropospheric heating
      caused by changes in total solar irradiance, stratospheric chemistry influenced by changes
      in the solar UV spectrum, or cloud coverage affected by the cosmic ray flux.

      The complete paper is here.

      Ken Miles

      November 2, 2006 at 8:49 am

    127. Cost of desal is not comparable with dams, construction of the Perth desal plant has blown out to $500M and will need an estimated 24.1MW power ( ~$1200/hr ) to produce 45,000 megs per year.

      Compare that with the stage 1 of the Traveston dam which will cost $1.7B and provide 70,000 megs of gravity fed water.

      rog

      November 2, 2006 at 10:34 am

    128. I posted some explanation about where the sun fits in (if the left allows the sun to be counted at all) in this debate.

      But I accidently posted on the Raptor thread.

      BUT THATS GOOD!

      Because its allowed me to rope-a-dope Ken. Who comes with his building persona of dumb-scientist.

      So here is yesterdays post re-posted on its proper thread.

      Now read it and the link and then read Kens bit of unscience again. And see how foolish Ken is being.

      I won’t spell it out for you right away. You can work it out on your own.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
      Here’s a pretty balanced article on what I heard:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

      Now they say that in the last twenty years the sunspots (and therefore they assume the strength of the sun) has levelled out. And yet the earth has continued to warm.

      But only by about 0.2 degrees.

      Now thats actually astonishingly close to what you would expect from this CO2 according to rule of thumb calculations.
      I’ve heard that with CO2 growing at the rate of .4% per year compounding that would equate to roughly an increase of 0.13 degrees increase per decade.

      All of this just on memory.

      So pull out approximately 0.1 degrees per decades. And most of the rest of the change is likely to be due to the sun.
      You know just as a rough first line-ball calculation.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

      Can you see the tendentiousness of Kens argument now?

      GMB

      November 2, 2006 at 3:03 pm

    129. Can you see the tendentiousness of Kens argument now?

      yep

      And miles had the temerity to link to a Rueters sludge peice thinking it will get through the censors. Pathetic.

      jc

      November 2, 2006 at 3:22 pm

    130. The answer is that they haven’t backed away from saying that the sun appears to be at its hottest for 1150 years or so.

      And if you go to Solankis paper you see the graphs that track world temperature and irradiance from the sun……

      …. Well they track really closely.

      What is surprising is that Solankis graphs overshoot from 1970 on. I would have thought it was more mid-80’s on, that being when the sun evened out.

      So the suns irradiance was supposed to roughly level out for the last twenty years. No mystery then that the bulk of the extra warmth would be thought to be from the CO2 given that there isn’t any EXTRA sun energy in that time.

      But I’m a bit surprised that he would have it that there wasn’t a strong upsweep from 1970 to the mid 1980’s.

      I’ve seen other claims elsewhere. And he didn’t give specific year to year figures so that needs to be reconciled.

      I’ve seen it that the INITIAL upshweep tracked with the sun very well.

      So that would have to be checked.

      GMB

      November 2, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    131. Bjorn Lomberg takes the Stern Report apart.

      C.L.

      November 2, 2006 at 7:16 pm

    132. Readers might also be interested in former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson’s Centre for Policy Studies lecture on climate change posted by the CPS yesterday. The last few pages comparing climate alarmism with religious primitivism and fundamentalism are especially brilliant.

      It’s a PDF document. (18 non-crammed pages):

      [An Appeal To Reason].

      C.L.

      November 2, 2006 at 11:54 pm

    133. Its religious substitution for sure.

      These lads should get themselves to a church.

      Get thee to a church I sez enviro-nazis!

      Not everyone is up to being an atheist.

      GMB

      November 3, 2006 at 2:35 am

    134. Richard Tol comments on the peer reviewed Stern report;

      http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/sternreview.doc

      [i]In sum, the Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes on the impacts of climate change. The selection bias is not random, but emphasizes the most pessimistic studies. The discount rate used is lower than the official recommendations by HM Treasury. Results are occasionally misinterpreted. The report claims that a cost-benefit analysis was done, but none was carried out. The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent.

      This is not to say that climate change is not a problem, nor that greenhouse gas emissions should not be reduced. There are sound arguments for emission reduction. However, unsound analyses like the Stern Review only provide fodder for those skeptical of climate change and climate policy.[/i]

      rog

      November 3, 2006 at 6:09 am

    135. Jase,

      further thinking on tariff and Global warming analogy surely they are mirror images of each other.

      Tariffs increase costs and therefore cause a misallocation of resources.
      Global warming comes about because pollution costs are not part of costs and again cause a misallocation of resources.

      Bring Back EP at LP

      November 3, 2006 at 7:42 am

    136. Haha. Has Bob Carter been reading Birdy?

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

      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.

      Jason Soon

      November 3, 2006 at 8:12 am

    137. Homer
      It’s not comparable. tariffs are an input cost for exporters and hurt Australian consumers. Getting rid of them yields immediate benefits.

      With CO2, assuming the disaster scenario is correct, the relevant variable is the stock of CO2 in the atmosphere. If Australia cuts its CO2 emissions and stops adding to the stock and other countries don’t, that’s an almost infinitesimal benefit in the big picture to Australians.

      Jason Soon

      November 3, 2006 at 9:20 am

    138. But Jase you seems to be missing the point about the cost to producers since pollution is not costed properly.

      Do we not gain dynamics benefits by being a country that as much as possible puts an economic cost on pollution ans thus have a more efficient allocation of resources than countries which do not?

      Bring Back EP at LP

      November 3, 2006 at 10:20 am

    139. So pull out approximately 0.1 degrees per decades. And most of the rest of the change is likely to be due to the sun. You know just as a rough first line-ball calculation.

      GMB, before you get too carried away basking in jc’s admiration, stop and think. If GHG’s cause 0.1 K/dec and the global warming over the last century is approx. 0.6 K, how much have natural causes contributed?

      And before you abuse me for include GHG contributions early in the century, stop and think about the relationship between radiative forcing (if you even know what that is) and concentration.

      Ken Miles

      November 3, 2006 at 11:26 am

    140. Miles
      The global mean temp for the past 100 years has moved up approx. .7 degs. If we had measured it in the 70’s would have been worried the other way

      You, along with all the other worry warts wants to stick 30% of the world’s growth rate in GDP on what seems to be 100:1 to one shot.

      You’re now supporting the Howard Stern report that can’t even get its economics right. Lomborg destroyed him in one short essay in the all Street Journal even after leaving out the broken windows fallacy I brought up earlier in the thread. The broken windows fallacy counts the growth rate for replacing a broken window, but doesn’t count the loss of the original window.

      The report is supposed to be serious. How could anyone take it so when the leftist twit talks about gender inequalities and forced marriage being one big problem with global warming?

      Bird makes some great points and it is clear he has thought about this more than someone like you who is prepared to link to a Reuters piece as providing support to your argument. That’s pathetic.

      Brid also makes the distinction between scientist and science workers: A good point.

      Let’s have a bet.

      C8to brought this up some time ago and it got the leftists all in a tizz.

      Is world GDP going to be higher or lower over the next 20 years? I bet it is. You can always offer me odds that it isn’t. Let me know what odss you’re offering me that it will be lower because by taking the stand you are, that must be your assumption.

      JC.

      November 3, 2006 at 11:43 am

    141. jc, if you were more observant, you would note that I haven’t said a thing about the Stern report. I haven’t go around to reading it yet and I seriously doubt that one non-expert can give a good coverage of such a broad technical field.

      And like GMB, it seems pointless debating you. You just appear to making stuff up. I haven’t assumed that GDP will be lower in the next 20 years – that’s just stupid.

      And as for dismissing a scientific paper because Reuters reported on it – that’s just pathetic.

      Ken Miles

      November 3, 2006 at 11:52 am

    142. The point about GDP is that if we are in a world of problems GDP is not going to grow. The stern reports strongly suggests it will actually be negative.

      GDP is the best measure we have at present that provides us with a indicator of human progress. It would have to go negative or at least not grow under stern and all the other worry wart scenarios. Hence the bet.

      JC.

      November 3, 2006 at 12:21 pm

    143. jc, I would presume that the Stern report (and once again I haven’t read it, so I can’t be sure) will compare the damage done by global warming against a baseline ie. compare global economy + global warming against global economy with no global warming in determining the damages done. So if the world economy grows faster than the damage inflicted by AGW, then GDP will still increase.

      My own view is that global warming will do more damage to the planets biodiversity than any other sector (more specifically, human activity can adapt considerably to changes in temperature thus mitigating the damage inflicted), so indicators other than GDP will be needed to measure this.

      Ken Miles

      November 3, 2006 at 1:22 pm

    144. “GMB, before you get too carried away basking in jc’s admiration, stop and think. If GHG’s cause 0.1 K/dec and the global warming over the last century is approx. 0.6 K, how much have natural causes contributed?”

      A lot of it.

      And thats a good thing.

      But when I say 0.1 degrees per decade thats if the CO2 release is increasing like it is now at under 0.4% per year CO2.

      And its actually quite likely that it wasn’t always growing that fast.

      Now there’s another thing Miles.

      See how well the Sun and the temperature tracks. The very close correlation.

      The gentleman finds he gets an even greater correlation if he puts an 11 year lag on.

      So that could help explain why we didn’t see what I’d seen elsewhere which is a REALLY BIG upswing in the suns energy somewhere in the late-seventies early-eighties.

      The extra radiation hits in 8 minutes of course but he gets a better correlation is he allows eleven years to go by. Or I think he says an 11 YEAR AVERAGING.

      So I figure with his 11 year averaging he’s clouded what I had heard to be a really very strong upswing in the sun (now I’m being cloudy) between I think 30 to 20 years ago.

      This is the trouble. Because its not laity review and because our young scientists have all gone mad you just cannot get hold of the data yourself.

      Now if its 11 years for the DELTA of the suns influence to be most strongly felt how about the CO2 effect?

      We would expect that to take a lot longer. Its the accumulation of the extra Joules to what would have been otherwise working its way through the system.

      The CO2 will work better initially on those nights when the air is dry. Cloud cover in Winter would otherwise have stopped the frost from forming on the grass.

      Enough CO2 and even without cloud cover the frost might be somewhat inhibited…

      This is an example of just how the difference in the Joules retained would feed into the system. In this place a little bit and in that place almost not at all. In this time a tiny bit and at that time not as much…

      Well there is going to be a much longer lag effect.

      A lot of the extra energy is likely going to be blocked at first at the top of the troposphere or bottom of the stratosphere where the greenhouse gasses are but the air molecules are very thin.

      Now those extra Joules (extra to what otherwise would have been) have to work their way down. And thats going to take awhile.

      I’ve heard from one felow he thinks the lag-time is like 34 years. Another fellow thinks fifty something. I shall try and cobble together the sources of these stray remarks because its very hard to find out anything from the priesthood so you have to act like a detective rather then an analyst.

      So anyhow.

      If there is an anomaly with a sudden rise in temperature around about the late 70’s that is not explained by the sun… or by the 11year lag time. And if it exceeds the rule of thumb logarithmic estimate that you expect from current CO2 growth rates…………

      Perhaps we could trace back 30-50 years?

      Is there any time when CO2 production might have started picking up not at .4% per year compounding?

      Perhaps there was a time when CO2 growth rates suddenly started picking up at 2% per year compounding?

      Just after the depression?

      During the war?

      Or the recovery after the war?

      Already I am getting very speculative. Not as one-sidedly speculative as my opponents on this one.

      A lot would have to be done. We would need to clean up all our figures. Take out any bias for the CITY-HEATING-EFFECT and so forth.

      But the key thing here in these days of scientist competence in their key specialty of technical expertise…… yet generalised unreason and bias…. Is to give people their due in their speciality.

      What do we than take from Solanki?

      We see that the ‘world average temperature’ ( a figure likely as troubling as the ‘price index’) tracks VERY closely to the suns activity… Other factors then work against this over time. Not strongly enough usually to break that almost one to one link.

      We find that the effect of the sun… while it is instant …. works through the whole climate system and in such a way as changes to the suns radiation and changes to the temperature correlate best over 11 years….

      (Part of this is undoubtedly due to the sunspot cycle. Since it is an 11 year cycle also…you are likely to get that REINFORCEMENT after 11 years to help make the correlation better. For this reason I think its probably a bit of a mistake for him to emphasise the ll year correlation. A lot of the effect would be instantaneous….. then the thing would work its way through a bit… then you’d get that reinforcement after 11 years that would help with your statistical correlation a bit.)

      Thats really all we need to take from this guy.

      So if he feels he needs to suck up to the current mania by wording things the way he did thats neither really here nor there.

      GMB

      November 3, 2006 at 3:23 pm

    145. “But Jase you seems to be missing the point about the cost to producers since pollution is not costed properly.”

      We are not talking about pollution.

      We are talking about the clear POSITIVE externality of CO2.

      Manna from heaven.

      Oh ye we are so unworthy.

      For I like the human race.

      But what did we do to deserve such dumb luck?

      GMB

      November 3, 2006 at 3:32 pm

    146. Be very careful here GMB, if you look too hard for correlations you will find them. Particularly if your throwing lag times in to the mix.

      In order to demonstrate an effect, you want more than just a correlation – you need a mechanism.

      While it is easy to see how solar variations could effect climate, it is much much difficult to see how solar variations could effect climate with an 11 year lag.

      If for example, the sun increased its intensity by 2% today, we would expect the earth to start warming almost instantly, and continue to warm until it either reached thermal equilibrium or the sun changed its output again.

      Ken Miles

      November 3, 2006 at 3:57 pm

    147. Bird,

      The 11 years I think refers to the solar activity cycle. If you measure sunspots and other such phenomena you find that the number of sunspots per month varies with a regular clcye of 11 years. Last maximum was around 2001 we are close to the minimum at the moment. next maximum will be 2012.

      There’s good records of it going back 150 years and reasonable ones even 100 years longer than that. It appears to be due to reversal of the Suns magnetic fields. see here

      Steve Edney

      November 3, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    148. I thought I’d explained it.

      If the sun increased its intensity by 2%…..

      We would get THAT spike immediately.

      8 minutes.

      Then it would work its way slowly through the system, warming the oceans, melting the ice and so forth.

      Then at the 11th year that spike would be reinforced.

      Because the sun-spots are on an 11 year cycle.

      So some of the effects take a while to work their way through…..

      On the other hand one 11 year cycle kind of runs the course of the last.

      So its not that surprising that while the instantaneous correlation is MAGNIFICENT………. The 11 year averaged (or is it the 11 year delayed…. or is it both?) is even better.

      If you read your link again I think you will find that the INSTANTANEOUS correlation is really very good.

      But because we have a regular sunspot cycle and because there are secondary effects to the extra radiation it cannot be a big mystery that the stats people can pull a tiny bit better correlation while waiting or averaging for 11 years.

      GMB

      November 3, 2006 at 4:10 pm

    149. But Edney.

      Thats what I’ve been saying!

      And the fact of that (and the secondary effects) is why you are going to get a GOOD correlation in 8 minutes but a BETTER correlation in 11 years.

      And we ought not be surprised by that.

      Thanks for the link.

      GMB

      November 3, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    150. I would imagine you would be averaging over the 11 years. Still there is some question still as to how much the actual irradiance of the sun has changed, rather than the activity as measured by sunpots and flares. Over a cycle irradiance only varies about 0.1% despite the sunspot number/month going from basically zero to 150.

      So there is a question whether at say the maunder minimum when there was basically no sunspots at all for 50 years, are we just talking about the 0.1% variation disappearing or does the whole irradiance decrease as well.

      The paper which cited above they say that since 1700 there has only been between a 2-8W/m^2 which is 0.2%-0.5% change. These are all reconstructions though only since 1978 have we actually measured it accurately enough.

      Steve Edney

      November 3, 2006 at 4:40 pm

    151. Well of course there is cleaning up to do on every part of this.

      But given that we see the two curves moving together like they were synchronised swimmers.

      Or at least drunk synchronised swimmers.

      So you cannot put it down to some sort of unclean figures.

      If such a clear correlation emerges out of sloppy figures then we ought not expect that cleaning up the figures will eliminate the correlation.

      GMB

      November 3, 2006 at 5:07 pm

    152. test comment

      c8to

      November 3, 2006 at 5:49 pm

    153. another testy comment

      c8to

      November 3, 2006 at 6:02 pm

    154. Ron Bailey at reason makes a great effort inn tering the stern report apart and shows it to be a sham.

      here’s an excerpt but read the whole thing

      http://www.reason.com/news/show/116401.html

      Stern makes his case by combining worst case climate model predictions with worst case economic model predictions. The predictable result is disaster 100 years hence. For his economic analysis Stern essentially uses the A2 storyline from the Third Assessment Report, issued in 2001 by U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That storyline supposes relatively slow economic growth (2 percent per year), global economic autarky, continued population growth, and retarded technological progress. The result is that world GDP by 2100 would be only $243 trillion while world population reaches 15 billion. Today, GDP per capita is almost $7000, although unevenly distributed. In this scenario, world per capita GDP would rise to just over $16,000 by 2100.

      But there are other IPCC scenarios. For example, the A1 scenarios foresee stronger economic growth (3.5 percent per year), global economic integration, population peaking then falling to 7 billion, and a lot of technological progress. The result is global GDP of $550 billion and a per capita income of nearly $80,000 by 2100. Quite a bit of difference. Surely it is reasonable to argue that if one wants to help future generations deal with climate change, the best policies would be those that encouraged economic growth. This would endow future generations with the wealth and superior technologies that could be used to handle whatever comes at them including climate change. In other words, responsible policy makers will select courses of action that move humanity from a slow growth trajectory to a high growth trajectory.

      Just as a thought experiment, let’s assume that boosting energy prices by imposing a carbon tax reduces economic growth by 1 percent per year. And because people like Stern, who are worried about climate change, are constantly mentioning their concern about the poor in Bangladesh, let’s look at how a 1 percent cut in that country’s growth rate would affect their future prospects. In recent years, Bangladesh’s economy has been growing at about 6 percent per year. Let’s assume the new carbon taxes cut Bangladesh’s economic growth rate by 1 percent to 5 percent per year. Bangladesh’s current GDP is $55 billion. So if Bangladesh’s economy grew at 5 percent compounded for 50 years, it would increase to $630 billion and in 100 years it would exceed $7.2 trillion. However, Bangladesh’s economy grew at 6 percent for 50 years, it would top over $1 trillion and in 100 years it would be $18.5 trillion. A 1 percent reduction in economic growth makes a big difference over the generations. Now the main concern about Bangladesh is how a warming world will cause rising sea levels to flood much of that country. It’s interesting to note that the Dutch manage to keep the sea from flooding their low lying country with a GDP of just $500 billion.

      Rather than viewing sea level change as totally catastrophic it is worth noting that Holland is essentially below sea level and they manage despite being the most idensely populated countries in the world …….and having a very high GDP.

      Again. The best thing to do with cliamte change is to do nothing at all.

      JC.

      November 5, 2006 at 12:20 am

    155. “Still there is some question still as to how much the actual irradiance of the sun has changed, rather than the activity as measured by sunpots and flares.”

      Is there? Well of course there is always SOME question. But how much here really?

      I mean it might be different if we were looking back millions of years. But how much doubt is there for hundreds of years, and where is this great level of doubt coming from in your mind.

      GMB

      November 5, 2006 at 6:43 am

    156. Sinclair Davidson

      November 5, 2006 at 8:07 am


    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: