One can tell – with a high degree of confidence – what topics are expected to be raised here, this morning when it comes to discussing the key challenges of today’s world. The selection of the moderator and my fellow-panelists only confirms it. I guess it is either international terrorism or poverty in Africa. Talking about both of these topics is necessary because they are real dangers but it is relatively easy to talk about them because it is politically correct. I do see those dangers and do not in any way underestimate them. I do, however, see another major threat which deserves our attention – and I am afraid it does not get sufficient attention because to discuss it is politically incorrect these days.
The threat I have in mind is the irrationality with which the world has accepted the climate change (or global warming) as a real danger to the future of mankind and the irrationality of suggested and partly already implemented measures because they will fatally endanger our freedom and prosperity, the two goals we consider – I do believe – our priorities.
We have to face many prejudices and misunderstandings in this respect. The climate change debate is basically not about science; it is about ideology. It is not about global temperature; it is about the concept of human society. It is not about nature or scientific ecology; it is about environmentalism, about one – recently born – dirigistic and collectivistic ideology, which goes against freedom and free markets.
I spent most of my life in a communist society which makes me particularly sensitive to the dangers, traps and pitfalls connected with it. Several points have to be clarified to make the discussion easier:
1. Contrary to the currently prevailing views promoted by global warming alarmists, Al Gore’s preaching, the IPCC, or the Stern Report, the increase in global temperatures in the last years, decades and centuries has been very small and because of its size practically negligible in its actual impact upon human beings and their activities. (The difference of temperatures between Prague where I was yesterday and Cernobbio where I am now is larger than the expected increase in global temperatures in the next century.)
2. As I said, the empirical evidence is not alarming. The arguments of global warming alarmists rely exclusively upon forecasts, not upon past experience. Their forecasts originate in experimental simulations of very complicated forecasting models that have not been found very reliable when explaining past developments.
3. It is, of course, not only about ideology. The problem has its important scientific aspect but it should be stressed that the scientific dispute about the causes of recent climate changes continues. The attempt to proclaim a scientific consensus on this issue is a tragic mistake, because there is none.
4. We are rational and responsible people and have to act when necessary. But we know that a rational response to any danger depends on the size and probability of the eventual risk and on the magnitude of the costs of its avoidance. As a responsible politician, as an academic economist, as an author of a book about the economics of climate change, I feel obliged to say that – based on our current knowledge – the risk is too small and the costs of eliminating it too high. The application of the so called “precautionary principle,” advocated by the environmentalists, is – conceptually – a wrong strategy.
5. The deindustrialization and similar restrictive policies will be of no help. Instead of blocking economic growth, the increase of wealth all over the world and fast technical progress – all connected with freedom and free markets – we should leave them to proceed unhampered. They represent the solution to any eventual climate changes, not their cause. We should promote adaptation, modernization, technical progress. We should trust in the rationality of free people.
6. It has a very important North-South and West-East dimension. The developed countries do not have the right to impose any additional burden on the less developed countries. Imposing overambitious and – for such countries – economically disastrous environmental standards on them is unfair.
No radical measures are necessary. We need something “quite normal.” We have to get rid of the one-sided monopoly, both in the field of climatology and in the public debate. We have to listen to arguments. We have to forget fashionable political correctness. We should provide the same or comparable financial backing to those scientists who do not accept the global warming alarmism.
I really do see environmentalism as a threat to our freedom and prosperity. I see it as “the world key current challenge.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
” I really do see environmentalism as a threat to our freedom and prosperity. I see it as “the world key current challenge.”- Vaclav Claus
I think VC statement on environmentalism and freedom is VERY unrepresentative on the development in former communist countries.
For example , in the Baltic States, the uprising aaginst the Sovietskies was partly environmentally motivated. People were tired of the degradation of nature and pollution of the Soviet occupants.
Yes, I think he has generalised the word ‘environmentalism’ when he needed to target certain totalitarian agendas dressed up as environmentalism, which will have little or no positive impact on the environment. Instead they will have a big negative impact on freedom and prosperity.
It’s a classic false dichotomy. And whether AGW is real or not has nothing to do with politics, it’s a matter of science. The response to the science is where the politics comes into it.
Collective action is called for, but derided. The free market is missing in action at present, but promises to turn up to help us cope with the effects of global warming after they start happening.
Ann, Is this the sort of thing you mean:
http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/ten.php
And would someone like to do a blog post on it?
Science has been uable to fully establish the past or present causes of climate change, nor verify computer modelled predictions up to 100 years into the future. Politics is feeding climate alarmism in order to raise taxes and pass restrictive laws.
The way forward is to develop viable alternative energy sources, efficiency through technological development, and adaptation to inevitable climate change.
Claiming we can control the weather/climate by attempting to manipulate atmospheric CO2 levels, unilaterally or otherwise, is deceitful, wasteful , and dangerous.
Paul, they will never be able to verify computer model predictions 100 years in the future. Does that mean we just act as if we know nothing? They can validate them with past records, and use sophisticated statistical means to test their robustness. They will not tell us exactly what it will be like in 100 years, but they are already on the right track as regards temperature increase, ice glacier melting and changing climates, (Australia being an excellent example).
Sounds like old Klaus wants to get into a bit of quickie economic development while flushing cyanide down the creeks. The usual reforming totalitarian state nonsense.
“We should provide the same or comparable financial backing to those scientists who do not accept the global warming alarmism.” … so we’re going to spend money on the equivalent of creation science and support crap journals like E&E – ye Gods ! Just becuase there’s another side doesn’t mean it’s any good.
Actually let’s spend heaps on creation science too then. And how about Nazi and Klu Klux Clan studies – maybe they have something to contribute?
Endless framing by Paul “alarmism, restrictive laws, taxes, dangerous, inaccurate models”
And the usual ruses “predicting 100 years into the future”.
Actually politics is firmly not raising taxes or passing restrictive laws. See Bush & Howard. What a try-on. Sounds like Scientific Alliance handbook stuff.
All very predictable – tell that to the fruit producers whose orchards are dying along the Murray. What risk management advice would you like to give them.
My point is that you can’t control the climate or weather, and:
EU has ‘Little Chance’ of Limiting Global Temperature Rise to 2C: Martin Parry Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II
Posted by Paul, at 05:26 PM
It was reported on BBC Radio 2 News today that the UK’s Martin Parry, co-chair of the IPCC’s working group II on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, has stated that the EU has ‘little chance’ of limiting global temperatures to a rise of 2C, due to the fact that global CO2 emissions are rising as though the Kyoto Protocol ‘never happened.’ He claims this means that millions more people are at risk from flood, drought and famine, although he acknowledges the difficulties with accurate prediction of future climate change.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002315.html
CO2 is going to keep on rising.
The issue of climate change, and what to do about it, is complex.
It boils down to a simple equation:
T = N + A
where
T = total climate change
N = natural component of climate change
A = anthropogenic component of climate change
This is the IPCC definition of climate change.
In any equation with three variables, it is necessary to know two to be able to solve for the third.
To solve for A, we therefore need to know T and N.
A lot of effort is going in to the measurement of T, all of the temperature gathering systems, ground based, satellite based, balloons. There is argument about how much change has occurred, and is occurring right now. The arguments about 1998 and 1934, as the warmest years are all about T. There is the work of the IPCC teams analysing temperature records, and proxies for temperature, to try to tease out the value for T, both now and in the past.
In most cases, the temperature measuring systems which were established in the past were never intended for this application, nor level of analysis. Therefore, the data itself is riddled with systematic errors. But it didn’t matter at the time, when the intention was to predict the local weather for tomorrow. Nor when the farmer, or the postman read the thermometer in the stevenson screen, parallax error, or carefully recording the temperature to a tenth of a dergree was not important. I know some people who have donr this for years.
It is like trying to tease a silk purse from a sows ear.
But statistical analysis of large volumes of data can reveal trends. However, the statistical processes and models almost invariably assume distributions of variance and error which are random in nature. When there is any systematic error, the statistical method itself is invalid, and the results are unusable.
Also, the analysis must include estimates of variation, so that the final result can be validly tested against the original hypothesis, or the results can be declared to be statistically not different to zero. To make this assessment, it is necessary to include with each data point, an estimate of variance. Therefore, it must be assumed that the results for trends are not statistically different to zero.
There is a lot of science now going in to estimation of N. This includes ice core analysis, sampling of every variable which affects climate and temperature, ocean currents, heat transfer systems, clouds, ionization, solar variations, the list goes on for ever. The results are a fascinating insight into earth and ocean physics, but science has only scratched the surface. So there is huge uncertainty about N.
Therefore, at this time, with current levels of knowledge, it is impossible to deduce A, the anthropogenic component.
The IPCC, in its definition of climate change recognises this equation. The UNFCC, and the environmental lobby attribute a value of zero to N, and hence claim that all climate change is anthropogenic in nature. This is obviously a falsehood, because we all recognise variations in climate within our own experience. We can read about the drought in the early 20th century, when the Murray ran dry in 1918 (I think), and again in 1923. We know this, it is public record.
We know local climate history from the spoken histories of local aboriginals. For example, the Inuit are not concerned about the melting of the coastal glaciers in Greenland, they have seen it before.
When two very complex variables like N and A are superimposed, it is extremely difficult to separate them.
It is impossible to stop N. There is a political move to try to stop, or limit, A. But before this is done, the value of A must be known with sufficient accuracy to enable a competent risk analysis to be conducted, and to determine how to change A.
When the values for N and T are known with sufficient accuracy and precision, it may be that the value for A may be negligible, or may not be significantly different to zero.
PP
It ran dry as there were no dams. That’s no longer the case, and so the River is not dry. But the drought sequence is now way beyond the previous 20th century droughts on record.
The government is spending another $400M on exceptional circumstances support.
The Inuit may have seen some melting before. But this is merely the “beginning”.
The Inuit have seen considerable melting before. We don’t know what the duration of the current melting will be. Will the expected downturn in solar activity result in a cooling?
Pirate Pete
Your post, above, is a very logical expose of the basic maths behind it all. It also underscores why one must be highly sceptical of the value of climate models, no matter how big the computers are, or how many are involved.
Even more so, when it is taken to the next level, and one realises that what is being attempted is to model two interconnected chaotic systems, that are part N and part A.
It makes on shudder to think that on the basis of this level of ignorance, billions will be spent trying to fix up a problem that still may not exist to the degree claimed, and if it did, the cost was out of proportion to the perceived consequences, the bulk of which are grossly exaggerated anyway.
PP
read the IPCC report. A lot of work has gone into resolving exactly that question, differentiating the natural change from the anthropogenic. They aren’t that stupid.
Yep you guys better see a downturn as you’re betting the company on it. But if there is a downturn it’s 100% illogical to suggest a greenhouse forcing still doesn’t exist – what happens when there’s a solar “upturn”.
On climate being chaotic – the world doesn’t spontaneously run away into positive feedback loops. Seasons come and go. El Ninos start and finish. The Sahara suddenly hasn’t changed into a rainforest and back again. The system is bounded.
Of course the models may be wrong in another way too – they may be too conservative.
Once you get all the CO2 up there you won’t be removing it easily.
Václav Klaus’ opinions have been shaped by the utter collapse of centralised, controlled economies and societies and he views environmentalism as just another trojan horse for those who want to regain power. He differentiates between environmentalism (as a religion) and those who care for natural resources. He also is sceptical of the EU’s abilities to ensure that freedom and democracy predominate over collective action.
Václav Klaus is uniquely well-qualified to identify Western incarnations of neo-Marxist efforts to establish a “planned ecology.”
With the collapse of the false “consensus” about AGW, there are increasing reports that we still must combat the demon CO2 in order to constrain the activities of privately-owned capital.
As the story goes, a “tragedy of the commons” requires that [neo-Stalinist] government must assert a democratic right [of the disenfranchised proletariat] to dictate to [make a government franchise of] globalistic [non-xenophobic] enterprises.
In order to establish a worker’s [Gaia’s] paradise.
It is an undeniable physical fact that the ratio between atmospheric CO2 and the earth’s oceans is 1:50 respetively. The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5 years. In order to double the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere requires a commensurate takeup into the oceans to maintain chemical balance.
There isn’t enough coal and oil available to us to achieve that according Tom Segalstad of the Oslo Geological Museum.
But it can happen in computer modelling where even the laws of physics can be repealed.
Computer models are prime examples of the Platonic method of reasoning where initial assumptions are held by common assent to be true, from which derivations of logically derived.
Environmentalists fervently believe that CO2 is pollution, formed by a polluting humanity which has diverged from its previous mythical primitive state.
So Klaus is quite correct in identifying environmentalism as a potential totalitarian system in which we are forced to behave according to environmental factors rather than others.
It is undeniable that the looney left took up environmentalism after the collapse of the USSR in 1989. (Interestingly that was when the global temperature started to rise with the corresponding closing down of the USSR rural met. stations.
We already have first hand experience of the way our future gaulieters will treat us – jsut look at Gaulieter Luke or SJT and their comments here.
You guys really believe this crap don’t you. Ageing cold war warriors with no commies left.
Pitiful. And for all your libertarian clap trap at heart your’re protectionist, anti-choice and anti-capitalist.
Anyway good to see Bob Santamaria is still with in Rog, Louis and Schiller. Never understood Bob’s TV shows myself.
Now Louis about your revision of the laws of thermodynamics – let’s get back to it.
Bob who?
Yeah yeah Luke just like some of your eco-nut mates,communazis,I’d call them.They know how to saddle up an economy with ongoing liabilities as they issue gigs to the like minded who,of course,know what’s best in the best of all possible worlds.Furthermore Vaclav Klaus and any one else for that matter who was raised on the other side of the iron curtain fully understands the danger of institutionalized stupidity.
WJP
maybe he should get his science sorted out first?
“1. Contrary to the currently prevailing views promoted by global warming alarmists, Al Gore’s preaching, the IPCC, or the Stern Report, the increase in global temperatures in the last years, decades and centuries has been very small and because of its size practically negligible in its actual impact upon human beings and their activities. (The difference of temperatures between Prague where I was yesterday and Cernobbio where I am now is larger than the expected increase in global temperatures in the next century.)”
He has no idea of what climate is.
Hang on – we can’t be communazis – coz you guys are the nazi jackboot bridage.
We’re already saddled up with ANOTHER wad to prop out drought declared producers. Like $400M.
This is Klaus’ book on global warming:
http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/objednavka.asp?id=30
Title translation: “Blue, Not Green Planet”
Subtitle translation: “What is endangered: Climate or Freedom?”
Nice illustration on the cover.
Unfortunately it’s in czech, but it was only published in May, and is apparently being translated into English.
Luke,
As you raised the topic of me revising the laws of thermodynamics, how abv out some evidence?
Ahem
about
It was this classic exchange:
http://timlambert.org/2004/12/hissink/
http://web.archive.org/web/20060626042827/http://mangledthoughts.com/index.php?p=1736
The thermodynamics issues were in the comments whilst the conservation of angular momentum issue was in the post lead.
Thanks “Wayback machine” – have all Louis’s classic scientific approaches archived – such as
“This blog is the kamikaze version of some more mundane climate sceptical views. I get fed some ideas to then throw them as intellectual hand grenades into the blogosphere. ”
And you want us to treat you seriously
http://web.archive.org/web/20060403033506/http://lhcrazyworld.blogspot.com/
Luke,
A classic exchange ?
Once again, not a singular phrase from you but incessant citations from various sources.
When, oh sorry, you don’t know how to think, only what.
No don’t you try that on you weasel. You asked for evidence and there you have it mate.
Louis
pwned.
Václav Klaus’s UN speech notes:
We Should Not Make Big Mistakes
(Notes for the UN Climate Change Conference)
Václav Klaus
The politicians know that they have to act when it is necessary. They know that their duty is to instigate public policy responses to issues that could pose a threat to the people of their countries. And they have to form partnerships with colleagues from other countries when a problem cannot be “confined” within national boundaries. To help doing it is one of the main reasons for the existence of institutions such as the United Nations.
However, they have to ensure that the costs of their “solutions” will not be bigger than the benefits achieved. They have to carefully consider and seriously analyze all their initiatives. They have to do it, even if it may be unpopular. It has to be done. I congratulate Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on organizing this conference and thank him for giving us an opportunity to address the issue of climate changes. The consequences of acknowledging them as a real, big, imminent and man-made threat would be so enormous that we are obliged to act more than responsibly. I am afraid it is not the case now.
Several points must be made to bring the issue into its proper context:
1. Contrary to the artificially created world-wide perception, the increase in global temperatures has been – in the last years, decades and centuries – very small in historical comparisons and practically negligible in its actual impact upon human beings and their activities.
2. The hypothetical threat connected with future global warming depends exclusively upon forecasts, not upon past experience. These speculative forecasts are, however, based on relatively short time series of relevant variables and on forecasting models that have not been found very reliable when attempting to explain past developments.
3. There is no scientific consensus about this issue. There exists an unresolved scientific dispute about the causes of recent climate changes. An impartial observer must admit that both sides of the dispute – the believers in man’s dominant role in recent climate changes, as well as the supporters of the hypothesis about their mostly natural origin – offer arguments strong enough to be listened to carefully by the non-scientific community. To prematurely proclaim the victory of one group over another would be a tragic mistake.
4. As a result of this scientific dispute, there are those who call for an imminent action and those who warn against it. We have to choose. Rational response depends – as always – on the size and probability of the risk and on the magnitude of the costs of its avoidance. As a responsible politician, as an economist, as an author of a book about the economics of climate change, with all available data and arguments in mind, I have to conclude that the risk is too small, the costs of eliminating it too high and the application of a fundamentalistically interpreted “precautionary principle” a wrong strategy.
5. Even the politicians who believe in the existence of a significant global warming and especially those among them who believe in its anthropogenic origin remain divided: some of them are in favor of mitigation, which means of controlling global climate changes (and are ready to put enormous amounts of money into it), while others rely on adaptation to it, on modernization, and technical progress and on favourable impact of the future increase in wealth and welfare (and prefer putting public money there). The second option is less ambitious and promises much more than the first one.
6. The whole problem does not only have its time dimension, but a more than important spatial (or regional) aspect as well. This is highly relevant especially here, in the UN. Different levels of income (and wealth) in different places of the world make world-wide universal solutions costly, unfair and to a great extent discriminatory. The already developed countries do not have the right to impose any additional burden on the less developed countries. Dictating ambitious and for them inappropriate environmental standards is basically wrong and should be excluded from the menu of recommended policy measures.
My recommendations are as follows:
1. The UN should prepare two parallel IPCCs and publish two competing reports. To get rid of the one-sided monopoly is a sine qua non for an efficient and rational debate. Providing the same or comparable financial backing to both groups of scientists would be a good starting point.
2. The countries should listen to one another, learn from mistakes and successes of others, but any country should be left alone to prepare its own plan to tackle this problem and decide what priority to assign to it among its other competing goals.
We should trust in the rationality of man and in the outcome of spontaneous evolution, not in the virtues of political activism. Therefore, adaptation, not attempts to mastermind the global climate.
9. 9. 2007
This morning the UN are calling for unified global action saying that “national action alone is insufficient”
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-09/25/content_6786632.htm
Meanwhile in the real world of climate:
Murray-Darling crisis: ‘No more water in 6 weeks’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/09/25/2042509.htm?section=justin
Drought to bring decade of pain: McGauran
Some farming districts will take more than a decade to recover from an unprecedented drought crisis, Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran says.
http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=45614
Drought: NSW summit underway
A drought crisis management committee similar to a war cabinet, is one of the suggestions at a drought summit now underway in Parkes, NSW.
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=45660
Drought: We must use our prosperity to fight crisis, says Vaile
Drought assistance is climbing towards $3 billion but Australia must use its prosperity to fight the crisis until the rains return, Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile, said today, as a Cabinet meeting gets underway in Sydney.
http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=45657
20,000 farmers receiving assistance, 65% NSW agricultural land affected
What’s the theoretical upper limit on atmospheric CO2 content? I mean if every carbonate on the whole fricken planet was vaporized.
I have read that about 50% of everything, land, sea, air, animal, vegetable, mineral, everything, 50% of it is oxygen.
Simularly, Carbon is 3% of everything the Earth is made of.
This puts an upper bound on what can be held in the atmosphere, something less then Venusian weather.
How do I know it’s less? Because at some point in the distant past the crust was red hot with infrared (presumably with all the carbon atmospheric) and yet it cooled off to where we are today.
Didn’t we just see a post claiming that world consumption of carbon based fuel will outstipe production in twenty years? – If that is true we have nothing to worry about regarding the doubling of CO2 content in the air, we will run out of gas first.
” My recommendations are as follows:
1. The UN should prepare two parallel IPCCs and publish two competing reports. To get rid of the one-sided monopoly is a sine qua non for an efficient and rational debate. Providing the same or comparable financial backing to both groups of scientists would be a good starting point.”
twice the opportunities for gravy train accusations.
James
the scientists are way ahead of you. They have looked, and there is plenty of carbon based fuel down there, but it’s going to be a lot harder to get to and more expensive. So we will lose two ways, costs are going to go up, due to fossil fuel scarcity, but there will be more than enough to double the CO2 content, since, as we have seen already, a huge jump in the price of oil has little effect on the use of it.
The litmus test will be the canadian sand oil. It is very expensive, uses a huge amount of resources to retrieve, but is becoming economical.
James in back on that hooch again. Weeell you’d have to suspend the laws of physics and chemistry and so CO2 isn’t allowed to dissolve in the oceans anymore (good luck) and all life on Earth is dead (wow!).
You can add up the carbon here in the climate cycle – you can do it and tell us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_cycle_diagram.jpg
Then don’t forget about Methane clathrates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_hydrate
James we might run out of petroluem but heaps of coal still left to liquefy. And oil shales.
Of course it cooled off numb nuts – the volcanism of intial planetary formation settled down and a crust formed.
Anyway your hypothetical indicates to me you still don’t get it.
CO2 by itself doesn’t do anything. It needs sunlight. As a matter of fact CO2 bubbles in beer seem pretty cold to me.
It only works as a greenhouse gas by recycling solar radiation (well remitted longwave). Try thinking about it – it helps some.
You can play with http://www.astro.columbia.edu/~roban/lab_2006_fall/radiative_equilibrium_student.pdf
And try to stay indoors and off the streets.