Both Alan Woods (columnist with The Australian) and Britian’s House of Lords have recently written on the economics of ‘global warming’.
I have received several emails asking me to post something about the House of Lords report. The first email arrived the day of the London Bombing and it got left in my growing ‘for the blog’ file.
Anyway an email received just yesterday read,
“In today’s Australian is an extremely well written piece by Alan Wood entitled ‘Kyoto is dead,let it be buried’ and subtitled ‘The Global Warming debate needs evidence’.
Rather than getting involved in never ending marginal debates about the science, which almost invariably end up with a lot of name calling (and even worse claims that because so and so doesn’t have a degree in whatever, he or she is disqualified from having both a brain and an opinion), the real issue is about the public policy of GW.
This turns around whether the Kyoto prescriptive model was a valid way treat a problem that is still in the porcess of being defined with any degree of certainty, or the USA way of throwing money at an energy effciency/technology solution is better. Wood is showing that it has already been decided that it is the latter, and we should all be thankful that common sense has prevailed.
Alan Wood refers to a House of Lords Committee report that is also extremely good and thorough. Not surprisingly both Wood and the Lords Committee are scathing in their criticism of the IPCC.
In my view whilst the ‘scientists’ are throwing bricks at each other, and being amazingly arrogant and manipulatve, the real issue once GW is established as being confirmed with an acceptable level of confidence will come down to how one solves the problem. Then it will get interesting.
Why not start a thread with either the House of Lords report or the Alan Wood article as the seed?”
Piece by Alan Woods
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15985290%255E31478,00.html
Report by House of Lords
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf
Associated Media Release
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn060705ea.cfm
Now on a related issue, can anyone tell me the history of the negotiations behind the establishment of Australia’s Greenhouse Office. I can’t find an email I was sent about a year ago with a story that it was part of the deal with the Democrats to get the GST through?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The thing I,liked about the Lords report was their emphasis on the economics of climate change including for the first time that I have seen, a call for a full analysis of the positive effects of increased Co2 and Temperature, as well as the negatives.
Well now there is a refreshing angle. Some one in the Lords must have been trained in logic and systems thinking.
If I remember correctly from my rather ancient Informaton System Analysis days, the establisment of a formalised statement or Problem Definition was all the rage.
It would be so nice if the GW community could actually agree a Definition that considered all aspects, not just the negative and hysterical, and did an economic costing of this. Whoops sorry I just tripped over another well used tool of business, cost benefit analysis. Note the words Costs and Benefits.
Sorry ..I dont have a Phd in the “Fourier analysis of a Ionised Squidget Facing East”……
Just common sense.
Heh heh, Malcolm your sense is rather uncommon – since if common means the majority, then….well, you know what tack I am sailing….
SHS: The Global Warming Controversy — Can we separate scientific signal from political noise? Stanford University Computer Systems Laboratory, EE380 Colloquium, 1-2002. View video (requires ASX player)
Commend this to both pros and antis of AGW … something here for all… as a way forward…
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/ClimateFrameset.html
If that also puts me up in the class of the people who did the House of Lords report, then I am truly honoured. I am sure Louis that with your own industry experience you dont miss the other points being made,that there are well understood practices of commerce and industry that should be applied to this GW analysis. Logical thinking, proper Problem definition of both negative/positive consequences, and an balanced cost benefit analysis. That shouldnt be too hard considering the sums of money and the number people involved, common and uncommon.
It just requires that the academics stop poncing on about who has the biggest, and get on with the real job of providing balanced evidence/advice because if they dont they are in danger of losing the populace on this and suffer even higher levels of cynicism.
For example it would be more credible if the CSIRO/DAR ceasing its opportunistic media beat ups of only the negatives and the shrill(in consort with state labour govts ) and start exposing some of the benefits as well.
So what benefits might Australia get from global warming ?
Mann et al have released their code and Steve McIntyre has commented appropriately. McIntyre has, so far been circumspect, but as posted elsewhere, if it were a mining entrepreneur or an director of Enron, but then everyone is equal, except that some are more equal than others.
As for Stephen Schneider, referred by Phillip Done, is this the same Stephen Schneider who said it was ok to tell porkies in the name of the issue?
OK Louis – and what porkies might that be – oh exalted objective one ….
Still waiting on that McIntyre peer reviewed paper Louis – de dum de dum de dum ….
http://co2science.org
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/reports/tr23final.html
David Vader
I remember my fathers house in the UK (before we left for Australia and the late 40’s) had a rather large greenhouse. It was set up so that Co2 could be pumped into it so that it would increase the growth factors. The Co2 Science web site is a compendium of research done over the years and as it happens covers many issues, including that of increased biomass consequent upon increased levels of Co2, and other benefits. I assume of course that rising Co2 and rising temperature are causually linked. One could logically conclude therefore that for a continent like Australia, where rainfall patterns are likely to change so that most of the rain dumped, may not be near population centres which the CSIRO/DAR says may happen, that there is a benefit (one of many) to the other areas now having higher levels of biomass and thus stock feed. Assuming of course that the El Nino behaves itself.
How is this for but one example. Not very hard was it.?
What porkies – referenced where? In fact tell me and we’ll email him for confirmation ?
John McLean – you beauty for picking this example.
Yep I too have personally seen the effects of CO2 on plant growth.
Rainfall in Australia is declining in SW WA and most of eastern Australia (not just population centres). It is increasing in north-west WA and central Australia broadly. For some clarity see… http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi – check the decadal series progression and other data presented.
So a lot of this rainfall is NOT getting dumped near our key agricultural and pastoral regions. And CO2 will only be useful like in your Dad’s glasshouse if you had some water. I imagine you last glasshouse had some pretty good plants.
Also we have C3 and C4 plant metabolism. C3’s will probably do better under climate change meaning we will prefer woody weeds (trees and shrubs). Trees and shrubs can reach deeper water in most areas and so out-compete the grasses.
What is the soil water holding capacity of most central Australian and north-west Australian soils?
Since 1976 we have had many more El Ninos than La Ninas and some “unusual” back to back El Nino sequences too. Perioidc droughts since the 1990s are wreaking havoc on our east cost agriculture.
And you also have to factor in fires (which way !) and heat waves on livestock…
So not raining in the right places and C3 preferencing a woody weed explosion with unknown ecological changes to northern Australia.
Actually to get Jen going we’ll say that the less availability of grasses (grass seeds) will mean an extinction of our central Australian bird fauna (I apologise for this sophistic and simplistic bait). Headlines – Global Warming kills birds. Jen to the rescue.(sorry delete this para).
Ahem…. back to the serious debate…
So sorry – not a good example – Next suggestion pls … OK – we might have some really good crops at Kununurra then…
Because God is likely to be US Republican WASP perversely many parts of the USA might benefit from El Nino in terms of increased rainfall and maybe the Canadian/northern USA wheat belt might be more productive with some extra temperature. How much I wouldn’t like to argue in detail…
I reckon there may be global winners and losers from climate change. I think in general Australia is likely to be one of the losers.
David Vader,
quoting Stephen Schneider
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements
and little mention of any doubts one might have.
Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
– Leading greenhouse advocate, Dr Stephen Schneider
( in interview for “Discover” magagzine, Oct 1989)
QED
Well guys looks like Jen is censoring my posts – a few responses not getting through.
So much for free speech.
I did a big response to the CO2 greenhouse story above.
As for the Schneider mag quote – probably from a skeptics site – I think I know which one …anyone have an actual copy?
Given the level of FUD you guys spin I think we need to go to source. ….
My apologies, a batch of comments from yesterday afternoon got caught in the pending box. So more than David V was ‘censored’ – please send me an email if there was something you wrote that has not yet been posted as a comment. I do sometimes ‘censor’ but I always let the person know by return email. I more often ‘edit’ i.e. delete the phrase or sentence which is really personally abusive … but I increasingly try and let it all go through to keeper.
Louis as I previously said you are such a scallwag. What a SELECTIVE quote. Schneider discusses this at length on his web site and the context of the discussion. Shame on you Louis !
The full quote was:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
To the sin bin with you to repent !
Quite Erroneously Discussed (QED)
Re post by David Vader..wherein he says
” I reckon there may be global winners and losers from climate change.I think in general Australia is likely to be one of the losers”.
This is exactly the reason why one should do a proper analysis of the +ves and -ves, and determine,on balance what the net effect is.
The same as the House of Lords report is recommending. In this way tax payers, through their goverments, will be able to determine what investment is required to achieve what effect.I know it is not sexy, like arguing the toss over matters of little ultimate relevance, but at least an increasingly cynical public may be able to agree a level of public investment, or not.
Sorry but I think it is a vg example. Just because there are some losers doesnt mean one should not do the work. To most practical people with some business acumen, and who understand the value of money this is a no brainer ..but then.
Don’t you think that if in fact we have managed to alter our global climate in such a short period of time, that there will be any real winners. Seems to me that it would be a very simplistic and selfish stand to take.
I don’t tend to buy into the whole ‘global warming’ debate as I believe the arguement is essentially between those that think “she’ll be right mate” and continue on regardless, and those that would like to try and make our world a healthier place to live. What is wrong with the latter, even if the planet isn’t warming up.
Well we need to make up our collective minds soon …. the global emissions continue unabated. India and China are coming on-line. I personally don’t think it’s wise to take a punt of the risk of an “upper end” temperature scenario coming off. Australia (even though a small % of the world’s total emissions, but close to highest per capita) has done nothing to curb energy growth or transport. If it wasn’t for a fiddle with tree clearing in Qld we’d be a mile over our “Kyoto target” (for what Kyoto was worth in this debate which wasn’t much anyway).
So the anti-AGWs have pretty much won. We’ve very little except to do some neat research which Louis and J McLean debate the integrity of …. so anti-AGWs – take a bow !
Graham
From what I have read there definitely will be some aspects of our planet that will be better off with a slightly higher temperature and higher Co2. The changes over the last 2000 years alone show that.I dont subscribe to the doom and gloom merchants view of the world over GW. By spending our money wisely and with the best “return”, is still the best way to go. Bjorn Lomborg’s book the “Sceptical Enviromentalist” is infinitely more rational and soundly based than any of the bollocks on GW produced by our own CSIRO. At least with Lomborg’s approach we would be spending money on the things we can do something about,and that includes many things that would make our world a better and healthier place.
Lomborg is very much like this blog run by Jennifer M, in that he concentrates on the real evidence, not the emotion, and by evidence I include value for money. With Lomborg’s rational approach, and the call by the House of Lords Committee we are more likely to achieve your goal.
Malcolm – hang on …. this isn’t like deciding whether to buy stocks in company A or B to get a “nice ” return. “Value for money” ?? The planet’s atmosphere isn’t optional – ” hmmm I think we’ll have the atmosphere in pink – what do you all think ?”
What bollocks are produced by CSIRO? Do tell ? Bollocks because you don’t like it. Haven’t read it… don’t understand it. Probably definitely haven’t spoken with them about it ? No phone call ?? I’m sure they’re all just having a good time wasting the govts money … if only they’d go back to the good old days eh …?
Given the world is heading to double or triple atmospheric CO2, given the current Australian drying trends, given current behaviour of tropical cyclones, heatwaves and floods – I don’t personally feel that “lucky”. Are you happy to take Louis’s word it’s all just dinky and keep going – no twinges of uncertainty at all ?
And gee for a big non-believer George Bush now seems to be billions on CO2 sequestration and hydrogen technology. FutureGen etc. I’m sure he’s just doing that for something to do for a bit o’ fun. Why isn’t this blog bagging GB for wasting all that money unnecessarily. Surely Malcolm, Louis and John – let’s just keep jacking up the old CO2 levels – be good for the geraniums won’t it????
Nobody has replied to FC’s Global Warming Skeptics in Denial on this blog. Lots of evidence and only some trivial Hockey Stick discussion as if that’s all there is to talk about. Evidence ignored.
So we do a “Lomborg” and make the world a better place. Then we kill those same people with extreme weather and climate a few decades later (possibly). Doesn’t sound that good to me if it’s even remotely possible. If it’s remotely possible we need the research on climate change !!
I give up. I was trying to stimulate some intelligent discussion about the economic fundamentals as exposed by the House of Lords report and Alan Woods excellent story.I was deliberately avoiding the issue of whether GW is proven or unproven and accepting that it might be, and if so we should think about how we go about ameliorating its impacts, beginning with the simple notion of doing analysis of both the upsides and the down sides.But all I get is a lot of dribbling nonsense, there by displaying quite perfectly why the public is turning away from the topic, and most enlightened policy makers,like Treasury officials are treating it with a high degree of scepticism.
Oh by the way if you dont understand why the CSIRO deserves to be roundly criticised, just follow/peruse their various GW/Climate Change consultancies done for the State Govts. Who says it isnt political.
Yup – and to to this you need climate change science which you guys inevitably don’t like.
So how will an “economic” analysis help you if you don’t know what to drive it with, what the effects will be with what probability?
And yes what’s “political” about the CSIRO reports – do tell how they were “lent on” to compromise their science. Do tell !
And Treasury officials as “enlightened policy makers” – now that’s rich !!
And Alan Woods excellent story – yech !
Treasury don’t like to spend money on anything They are hooked on a growth consumption paradigm. Not surprised they don’t like it. It’s all bad for short term politics and “not in my three year term pls”. Perhaps we need to hook up MEGABARE to a GCM. But then Louis would say all the answers are rubbish… so what do you do ??
So enough dribbling nonsense then … just don’t say it’s a good thing – give us a road map and a plan. Some details perhaps?? But gee – isn’t that what CSIRO is trying to do with the various states ? oh darn forgot – they’re no good….
hmmmm…..