In today’s UK Telegraph Christopher Booker has commented:
“As the estimated cost of measures proposed by politicians to ‘combat global warming’ soars ever higher – such as the International Energy Council’s $45 trillion – ‘fighting climate change’ has become the single most expensive item on the world’s political agenda.
“As Senators Obama and McCain vie with the leaders of the European Union to promise 50, 60, even 80 per cent cuts in ‘carbon emissions’, it is clear that to realise even half their imaginary targets would necessitate a dramatic change in how we all live, and a drastic reduction in living standards.
“All this makes it rather important to know just why our politicians have come to believe that global warming is the most serious challenge confronting mankind, and just how reliable is the evidence for the theory on which their policies are based…
Read more here.
———————-
The ‘consensus’ on climate change is a catastrophe in itself
By Christopher Brooker, Telegraph.co.uk
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 31/08/2008
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“Indeed only a comparatively small part of its reports are concerned with the science of climate change at all. The greater part must start by accepting the official line, and are concerned only with assessing the impact of warming and what should be done about it.”
What a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The greater part is based on the findings of the first part, as it must be. They don’t “accept the official line”, they are specialists in other areas who are relying on the expert advice of the climate scientists. This is as it must be, no-one is able to understand all science and economic theory. All knowledge has to be broken up into understandable segments. That’s not a conspiracy, that’s just how you have to deal with mortal, human nature.
“It is on the projections of their computer models that all the IPCC’s predictions of future warming are based.”
Of course. What does he want them to use instead? Astrology? Tea Leaves? Conservative Newspaper columnists? Models are all we have for making a stab at what will happen in the future. We could just do nothing, but given that we know CO2 is GHG and it is heading towards at least a doubling of content in the atmosphere, I would prefer we use our brains and try to see what will happen.
I await his article on how economists should never use models, either.
Sjt: ‘What a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The greater part is based on the findings of the first part, as it must be.’
In a rare slip, SJ Troll has made a confident assertion of fact; something easily checked out…
Not that exposing SJ as a fool would be a huge coup. No front pages are being held.
SJT,
Did you you’ve GOT or you ARE, the bigest dick?
In the article it talked about McCain promising cuts in CO2. I have seen at least one article over here that claims McCain is bluffing to get votes. He’s a showman. The Republicans, who represent big oil and big corporations would never allow him to fulfill an agenda like that. I doubt if Obama could pull it off either. The Clintons talked about universal medicare and that’s as far as it got.
Even here in Canada, the presently big talking Liberals, who were in power when Kyoto came up, never implemented it.
“…we can expect a decade or more of “cooling”, before the “underlying warming trend” reappears.”
ROFLMAO. They just can’t get it right! Those darn computer models couldn’t even predict the cooling since 1998. Don’t you hate it when natural forces keep getting in the way of “man-made global warming.”
Good to see Booker making it down under. Usually writes common sense stuff about various follies around the place.
Readers may also be interested in his friend and co-author, Dr Richard North, website, http://eureferendum.blogspot.com, likewise exposing various lunacies and follies for what they are.
“Even here in Canada, the presently big talking Liberals, who were in power when Kyoto came up, never implemented it.”
Posted by: Gordon
Gordon,
The pain of real CO2 reduction by advanced economies will be horrendous and, I think, politically unachievable.
I’ll bet Australia’s ACO2 will INcrease, not DEcrease by 60% by 2050.
People are still buying plastic gin palaces that consume 700 litres of fuel an hour “off the showroom floor”.
They really are trying to prove who’s got the biggest dick.
“I await his article on how economists should never use models, either”
Apart from the fact that the economics I studied at uni never ever claimed to be an exact science,
if your comparsion means you are relying on climate change modeling being as reliable as economic modeling, no wonder the AGW argument is in trouble!
Science has never been about “consensus” or making world/life changing decisons based on computer models, it is about emprical evidence that can be measured tested and proven. Modelling in this case is about prediction and in that context it is about as reliable as economics.
“They really are trying to prove who’s got the biggest dick.”
“The bigger the car the smaller the penis.” spangled drongo
oops, sorry spangled, i misattributed a quote to you.
SJT forgets that the contributions by IPCC Working Groups I, II and III were written in parallel.
This means that WG’s II and III either were clairvoyant about WG I would say, that the IPCC pre-determined what WG I would say or that WG II and III work was based on the IPCC 3AR of 2001.
but…but…. today the Age tells me:
“CLIMATE change is the most significant challenge facing the global economy over the coming decades. The basic science of global warming is simple, and has been understood for over 100 years. Granted, we are uncertain about precise impacts at the local level. But it is clear to anyone who looks at the evidence, including countless Nobel prize-winning scientists, that we are running grave risks.”
this was written by:
Melbourne-raised Dr Cameron Hepburn is deputy director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University. He wrote two background papers for the Stern Review.
what some will do to protect their feeble jobs.
So Jennifer, given that consensus is bad, I take it that your argument that Callendar’s paper isn’t valid because it wasn’t met with consensus approval at the time no longer stands?
“Did you you’ve GOT or you ARE, the bigest dick?”
You’re just jealous.
“what some will do to protect their feeble jobs.”
And you know this how? Are you a mind reader?
SJT, how can you possibly read this article and not be at least a little bit sceptical? Your faith in the models is truly of religous proportions and maybe on the thread about AGW and religion we should have just placed your name as proof!…the models keep getting it wrong but you will still believe in their doomsday forecasts.
‘As it was put by Roger Cohen, a senior US physicist formerly involved with the IPCC process, who long accepted its orthodoxy: “I was appalled at how flimsy the case is. I was also appalled at the behaviour of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it.
“In particular I am referring to the arrogance, the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defence of bogus science; and the politicisation of the IPCC process and the science process itself.” ‘
How many more scientists do you want to say they are sceptical, before you at least start to question your faith?
“What a complete misrepresentation of the facts.”
No you are just lying. Why lie about it SJT? Whats the point of that?
“SJT, how can you possibly read this article and not be at least a little bit sceptical? ”
I keep on recalling that topic that was on here recently that had a Channel 9 personality saying there is a “need for more scepticism about Global Warming”. I couldn’t agree more, scepticism is about evidence, but most of what I see here is third rate amateurism and ignorance. Scepticism, guys. This article resorts to so many basic logical fallacies, such as strawman argument, it doesn’t rate as scepticism. Lift your game.
Seems like there are more lies from the warmers coming to the surface. You know how they drone on about the fact that man needs to quickly switch away from fossil fuels anyway because they are rapidly running out?!
Well, not so much:
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/488465
(and this is from the Red Star no less!)
Seems like there are more lies from the warmers coming to the surface. You know how they drone on about the fact that man needs to quickly switch away from fossil fuels anyway because they are rapidly running out?!
Well, not so much:
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/488465
(and this is from the Red Star no less!)