Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Methinkshe

Members
  • Posts

    5,315
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Methinkshe

  1. So you don't think increased atmospheric CO2 causes a rise in global temperature.

    But the only "eminent scientist" you have quoted suggests that because CO2 is caused by warming it cannot cause warming. That's obviously a fallacy. Tell me if you can't see it and I'll explain. Can you find any other "eminent scientist" who agrees with you?

    Where, in the following sentence (or, for that matter, in any sentence that I quoted from Ian Pliner's book) is it claimed that CO2 cannot cause a rise in temperature?

    "Hence the rise of CO2 in past climates is a response to warming, not the cause."

    And what do you believe caused the temp rise seen at the end of the last century and maintained over the last 10 years, then?

    And why is the earth about 30 degrees hotter than it would be with no warming gases in the atmosphere? (The "black body" calculation).

    I am not going to engage with you any further in discussions about the science that is relied upon to support AGW. I consider it to be a pointless exercise.

    The evidence available to all scientists is the same; ice cores, for instance, remain the same whether examined by a pro or anti AGWist. It is only how individual scientists use or extrapolate or interpret the evidence which differs from one camp to the other.

    Thus, the debate as far as this thread is concerned, comes down to faith; which interpretation do we choose to believe and why?

    Moreover, if we are desirous of discovering truth rather than preserving sacred cows, then honesty must be central to any debate. Opposing arguments should be given full consideration and not just rejected piecemeal and on dubious grounds such as miscomprehension due to non-contextual or fractured reading.

    It is all too easy to Google and find an argument or a graph or a peer-reviewed paper to back an opinion on either side of the debate. But post-justification of a pre-formed opinion does not really tackle the heart of the matter: i.e. what caused one's opinion to be hardened in the first instance?

    One could address the same question to those engaged in frontline climate research. Are they engaged in a search for truth or a means to reinforce a personal bias?

    Honesty and humility in the face of contradictory or alternative interpretations of evidence is essential to scientific progress. Both seem to be in short supply in the climate change debate.

  2. Here lyeth the green shoots.

    http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle6461286.ece

    Is summer going to be a barbeque bumper as per met office predictions (no really, I want to know - is it relatively dry over there?)

    Is the slowndown in the tumble a genuine plateau before the inevitable mad rush to join the rocket into the stratosphere of unimaginable house prices that will finally turn those who no longer even dream of a house into a population of wandering minstrels and serfs

    ... or is it all just more boyant bumf... opinions please

    A nasty frost in the form of reality (concerning such stuff as unemployment and its consequences) comes and nips in the bud all those green shoots.

  3. Apology accepted. However, you are not guilty of hyperbole, but misrepresentation. I have never claimed that peer review is perfect or even very reliable, merely that it is a necessary condition. Peer review is to science as democracy is to society - imperfect and undoubtedly prone to abuse, but far better than the alternatives. It is a necessary first hurdle for any scientific paper to overcome - passing peer review is just the first step towards acceptance. The fact that a paper has passed peer review doesn't mean it is correct, merely that it is not obviously incorrect.

    I don't believe it was misrepresentation; however, if that is how you perceived it, then I apologise again. I acknowledge that if my comment gave rise to even a perception of misrepresentation, then I should, in future, refrain from such careless comments.

    Upon what evidence is your opinion based?

    Far too many articles, essays, etc. that I have read in various publications - on and offline, books, journals, diaries, biographies, personal experiences related to me - you name it (and none logged because I am driven by curiosity and not by a desire to prove a point, and therefore data-collection and referencing doesn't even enter my head) to ever be able to individually reference.

    Enough material, however, to arouse in me a deep suspicion of the system of peer review that currently operates. I do not deny that it has operated better in the past - I do believe it has. But I am more concerned with how it operates in the present. From all I have managed to gather, it doesn't currently operate too well.

    It was because of this suspicion about peer-review and also falsification of data, that when I read an article in the newspaper about falsification of data, instead of just consigning it to the dustbin that is my memory, I actually made a point of tracking down the article and posting it here. Likewise, when I stumbled upon an article that was critical of the system of peer-review that currently operates (especially in the climate change debate) I logged it and posted here instead of just adding it to my memory dustbin.

    From now on, I shall probably continue to log and reference such articles. But until now, I considered them only informative in a general knowledge sense rather than requiring of being logged so as to support a possible argument at a future date.

  4. To clarify my perception, I think they now see high inflation as the danger (certainly in the medium term), and are focusing on deflation with the aim of anchoring expectations on a point between the two, i.e. low inflation.

    Yes, although one has to believe in the power of jaw to actually affect (if not effect) the end outcome.

    I agree.

    (All IMHO and from a position of interested ignorance).

    Ditto.

    But one has to start somewhere......................!

  5. >The latest IMF report said the chance to raise fresh bank equity while optimism lasts should be "seized without delay"

    i.e. IMF thinks its a bull trap and the banks should spring it.

    VMR.

    Yep. And the IMF also knows exactly how much is current bank solvency reliant on either government intervention (Asset Protection Scheme in the UK, for instance), changed accountancy rules (mark to model/ 'magination) and a totally irrational equity market.

  6. For what it is worth (which is very little), that is my take.

    Ditto my take. However, it does seem strange to go for index-linked if deflation and continuing low interest rates is the expected outcome.

    If correct, the question is how can it be unwound? Would they have to start tightening rates before tightening their operations? This has been hinted at I think, and would allow them to keep talking deflation, but how would they justify a rate raise under these circumstances?

    Do they actually want to have their hand forced? Or am I getting ahead of myself?

    I think a rate rise could possibly be justified on the grounds of a recovery (even if it is a false premise). Hence the continual talk of green shoots and especially a recovery in house prices - not to mention equating the rise in equity markets as evidence of a recovery. Although it seems to me that the performance of equity markets is built on nothing more than a follow-my-leader desire not to miss out on the rally, whatever its cause.

    I think both are important. Many far more qualified than I would argue that managing expectations of inflation are the very most important tool in managing inflation.

    What is said by those who dictate policy is important in terms of managing inflationary expectations, but what is done is instructive in terms of what is really believed will occur.

    At least, that's my take. But, like you, I am fully prepared to defer to those better qualified.

  7. Where did I say peer review is infallible?

    You didn't; I am guilty of hyperbole. I apologise.

    However, the number of times on this thread that you have asked me for peer-reviewed papers does demonstrate that you place a great deal of confidence in the system of peer-review.

    I do not.

    Imo, it is open to abuse in the form of funding bias, vested interests, manipulation/ falsification/ omission of data, scare tactics (threat of losing employment) and many other external influences. The search for truth seems to be very low on the list when it comes to peer-review; the search for funds followed by security of job tenure seems to top the list.

  8. It would appear that not everyone agrees with the infallibility of peer-review that Snowflux espouses.

    2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #3

    HIGHLIGHTS OF THIRD & FINAL DAY

    BOB CARTER'S SUMMARY: LINK

    DAN MILLER'S SUMMARY

    2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #3

    Dan Miller

    NEW YORK--Willie Soon, a Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist with scores of peer-reviewed papers and books to his credit, said he is "embarrassed and puzzled" by the shallow science in papers that undergird the proposition that the Earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.

    Soon told the second International Conference on Climate Change here, "We have a system (of peer reviewing scientific literature) that is truly, truly appalling."

    Soon's criticisms echoed an earlier presentation at the 2 1/2-day conference that ended Tuesday and was attended by about 700 scientists, economists, and policy makers confronting the issue "Global Warming: Was it ever really a crisis?" John Sununu, former governor of New Hampshire, former chief of staff under George H.W. Bush, and a PhD in mechanical engineering, also lamented what he called the "restrictive distribution of research funds" through government channels.

    He called for a "fairness doctrine" to be "applied to the funding of research and to the journal-review and publishing of papers."

    Sununu and Soon both said global warming alarmists, particularly the politicians and the few scientists who wrote the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, have captured the scientific paper process, and in Sununu's words, have been successful in "taking control of who gets funding, who gets published, who gets acclaimed, and who gets demonized."

    "What happened to the peer-review process?" Soon asked rhetorically as he reviewed egregious and complex examples of doctored data and sloppy scholarship in global warming alarmist literature.

    In a separate presentation, John Theon, retired senior atmospheric scientist at NASA, accused his former underling, James Hansen, of "embarrassing NASA" with his increasingly strident alarms of imminent death and destruction from the effects of global warming. Among other charges, Hansen has asked for a Nuremberg-style trial for climate realists who disagree with his claims of global warming catastrophe.

    Theon said some 300 scientists, including Hansen, reported to him when he was at NASA, "but [Hansen] didn't receive the attention from me that he should have."

    He noted, for instance, that Hansen, a NASA astronomer, received a six-figure grant from the Heinz Foundation, run by the wealthy wife of U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and afterwards, endorsed Kerry for U.S. President. Theon said Hansen's endorsement violated the federal Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from endorsing candidates. But Hansen had "too many powerful friends" in Washington, and so far has escaped discipline.

    Theon added that since Hansen has engaged literally in many hundreds of interviews in recent years, he clearly has not been muzzled, as Hansen claims.

    Last Updated ( Sunday, 19 April 2009 )

  9. "Bank of England Pension Scheme switch investments to index linked gilts "

    Ive seen/heard this somewhere before - is there a link anyone? I think this is very telling if so....

    Good old google -

    http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/03/31...g-on-inflation/

    edit to add link

    Interesting.

    More grist to the mill that the B o E is overstating deflationary dangers so as to lower inflationary expectations which present the real danger.

    As has been said before, it's not what is said but what is done that matters. Or, actions speak louder than words.......

  10. Be sure to check any exit penalties. Sometimes unforeseen relocation becomes essential (new job in different area, for instance) before the end of the fixed term, and early redemption penalties can be very large from what I remember reading in various financial advice columns over the years.

  11. That would be 5 peoplke who have spent years training, learning qualifying and researching, and who can explain their methodology and justify their conclusions with hard science, yes.

    What reliance? CO2 has been known to be a warming gas for over 100 years. It also isn't really in contention amongst scientists, even the most contrarian ones, that man is producing CO2 or that temps are rising.

    Yes he very definitley has. Suggesting that, because historically CO2 rises are casued by warming, CO2 cannot cause warming, is misleading. Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size can spot this very obvious fallacy.

    What do you believe caused the temp rise seen at the end of the last century and maintained over the last 10 years, then?

    And why is the earth about 30 degrees hotter than it would be with no warming gases in the atmosphere? (The "black body" calculation).

    I see little point in arguing the science with you. No refutation by any number of eminent scientists is going to shift your opinion. Historical evidence isn't going to shift your opinion. Nothing is. You are now so indoctrinated, and the notion of AGW is so firmly lodged in your consciousness that even if, in ten years time, it snowed in England throughout the summer, and average global temperatures fell by 5 degrees C, you'd still say that this was due to AGW.

    The better tack to take is the one that Injin is taking - the "so what" approach.

    Edited for typo.

  12. No, I'm convinced by the underlying science and believe the IPCC when they outline the likely outcomes.

    Even though the crucial Chapter 5 of IPCC AR4 (Humans Responsible for Climate Change) was based on the opinions of just five independent scientists?

    And despite the IPCC reliance on the notorious (some would say deliberately fraudulent) "hockey stick graph" that Nature published uncritically and without checking Mann's data? (So much for peer-review).

    You believe a man who has already been shown to be misleading on the one claim you understand enough to explain.

    Pliner has not been shown to be "misleading" (if you are referring to Snowflux's facile assessment of the excerpt re ice-cores that I posted.) What IS misleading is Snowflux's refusal to read the WHOLE and yet have the presumption to pronounce on Pliner's integrity.

    Do you believe CO2 is a warming gas or not?

    Are you asking whether I believe that increased atmospheric CO2 causes a rise in global temperature?

    If so, the answer is, no.

    Edited for typo.

  13. I believe the IPCC.

    So where one stands on the AGW debate is a matter of faith, then, and not of the science and/or evidence which is equally available to both sides but differently interpreted by both sides.

    Furthermore, what one chooses to believe or discard when presented with new evidence/research/experimentational results, is based purely on one's pre-conception and faith in that pre-conception. For instance, when temperatures stopped rising, Manmade Global Warming was changed to Anthropogenic Climate Change so as to circumvent that little difficulty of evidence undermining the theory. So that now, whether the temperature rises or falls, it is still claimed by AGWists that it is evidence of AGW. In other words, the pre-conception/theory determines the acceptability of the evidence rather than the evidence shaping the theory.

    Which is why I said in an earlier post that the heart of this debate has less to do with the underlying science than with the reasons each of us has to believe in the pro or anti arguments.

    Why, for instance, are you convinced by the IPCC and I am convinced by Ian Pliner?

  14. Ok.

    Why is any of this binding on me?

    Why is it binding on any of us?

    The cost to western nations is off the scale of sensible prophylactic spending against an imaginary ill, and the cost to third world countries will be millions upon millions of lives; meanwhile, the use of agricultural land for biofuels is already bringing starvation to millions, doubling the cost of cereals in a year. (UNFAO 2008). The cure of this imaginary ill is already far worse than the disease - raised atmospheric CO2 levels - which, by all accounts, will only increase plant growth and help the poor through increased crops/acre.

  15. I'd be more inclined to take his book seriously if you were to give a few examples of his scientific argument rather than his faulty logic.

    No.

    By isolating one small paragraph just to demonstrate one very small part of one topic - ice -which gets 50 pages in the book, I have already elicited from you a response that Pliner is misleading in his statements. This is far from the truth and, unless I am prepared to sit and type 50 pages (which I am not - copyright forbids apart from anything else) I will only elicit from you more statements unjustly damning Pliner. The arguments he puts forward are comprehensive, detailed and fully-referenced. They are not amenable to being reduced to soundbites. You will have to read the book for yourself if you want fully to understand his arguments.

    Or are you concerned that your faith in AGW could be undermined by reading a book of collected, comprehensive, scientific arguments against AGW, fully referenced (peer-reviwed papers no less - I know how important that is to you) and very much grounded in historical evidence as opposed to hung on a sky-hook of dubious computer modelling of future events?

    Edit: missing word "to".

  16. We've been through this loads of times too. Prof. Plimer has introduced a false dichotomy here; there is no reason why increased CO2 levels cannot be both a cause and consequence of warming, resulting in a feedback effect. This is perfectly well understood by climatologists, and the 800 year delay is completely consistent with warming mechanisms.

    Briefly, slight warming is caused by some other effect, such as orbital changes or solar output, resulting in increased CO2 levels. This, in turn results in additional warming until some other factor, such as CO2 depletion stops the warming. Indeed, without such a feedback effect, it would be very difficult to explain the rapid temperature changes that are known to have occurred in the past, given the lack of CO2-emitting 4x4s, etc.

    I don't know what Prof. Plimer's motivation is for making such misleading statements, but if I were you, I'd stop relying on his word as gospel. There are many other more qualified people than Prof. Plimer who can easily clear up such basic misunderstandings.

    Ian Pliner's book, Heaven and Earth, is nearly 500 pages long. This short excerpt (barely half a page) is hardly representative of his whole argument - it is just one very small factor that he takes into account when drawing a conclusion.

    Why don't you read the book? Then you will understand Pliner's argument as a whole rather than attempting to refute his argument on the basis of one very small excerpt that I extracted almost at random - so numerous are the scientific arguments against AGW that he cites.

  17. And how is that relevant? Do you think that, because warming causes CO2 that CO2 cannot cause warming? Or that there is some "mystery cause" of warming that is causing the CO2 production (and another magic absorber of man made CO2 as well)?

    Or is it that we are producting CO2, CO2 is causing underliying decadal warming, this warming will cause the natural CO2 production that Prof Plimer talks of and warming will get worse? And all in a few decades instead af millenia as is natural.

    Tell you what, why don't you read the book for yourself?

    I could sit here and type out reams of reasons Plimer gives why the science on which AGW relies is either missing or wrong, but it would be much better if you read it for yourself. Apart from anything else, it took me ages to type that last excerpt with all the references, and I don't fancy doing that again!

    After all, both you and I are reliant on the research of others and the conclusions that they draw for a foundation on which to base our own opinions, so both of us can only quote the work of others. So it's not as though we are bringing anything original to the debate - we're both just repeating what others have theorised. Thus, I don't see much point in my regurgitating Plimer's arguments when what is actually at the heart of the debate is the reason for our personal belief in either the pro or anti AGW camp.

  18. "thoroughly disproven and discredited" isn't the same as "by no means proven". Which of those two conflicting statements do you actually believe.

    Are you referring to this post of mine:

    I expect it to be equally difficult to remove from popular consciousness the theory of AGW - even if it is indisputably proved to be based on false/incomplete data and is thoroughly disproved and discredited. Once a theory is established as fact in the collective consciousness it is incredibly difficult to dislodge it.

    I think you have misread or misunderstood what I was saying.

    I am simply pointing out that even IF (maybe it will, maybe it won't) AGW were to be "disproven and discredited", it would be difficult to expunge it from the collective consciousness.

    I used "by no means proven" in a compeletely different context:

    In any event, the point I wish to demonstrate is that your claim that temperature rises follow increased CO2 is by no means proven - there is still a lot of dissent out there.

    You cannot do a lucky dip and extract phrases from different posts and then conflate the subjects to which they refer.

    And you still haven't said which bit of the chain CO2 causes warming, man produces CO2, (decadal) warming is occuriing. you think is wrong, with scientific evidence as to why.

    This bit, for starters: the rise of CO2 in past climates is a response to warming, not the cause.

    "There was a suggestion from a study of the Vostok (Antarctica) ice core that CO2 had forced climate changes throughout the past ice ages. However, this has been challenged because of substantial mismatches. These mismatches were corrected using a model that incorporates variations of climate in the source regions for water vapour. (Caffey, K.M. and Vimeux, F.2001: Covariation of carbon dioxide and temperature from the Vostok ice core after deuterium-excess correction. Nature 412: 523-527. Measurements of CO2, methane and temperature in ice cores show a sawtooth pattern. (Dahl-Jensen, D.K., Mosegaard, K, Gundestrup, N, Clow, G.D.,Johnsen, S.J., Hansen, A.W, and Balling, N. 1998: Past temperatures from the Greenland ice sheet. Science 282: 268-271) At the scale of measurement, it looked as if there was a close correlation between temperature and CO2. (Mudelsee, M. 2001: Phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 la. Quarterly Science Review 22: 583-589. Furthermore, temperature rose and then suddenly declined. There was no "tipping-point" and the temperature-CO2 plots clearly showed that the rise of temperature was stopped by something other than CO2. (Wunsch, C. 2003: Greenland-Antarctic phase relations and millennial time-scale climate fluctuations in the Greenland ice-cores. Quarterly Science Review 22: 1631-1646.). To analyse thousands of metres of ice-core chemically is a difficult, costly, slow process. Some early sampling was using layers separated by 800 years of snow deposition. (Barnola, J.M., Pimienta, P., Raynaud, D.and Korotkevich, Y.S. 1991. CO2-climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice-core; a re-examination on new measurements and on a re-evaluation of the air dating. Tellus B 43:83-90. This missed a key feature of the core. It was only with later, far more detailed studies of ice cores that another story emerged. New high resolution studies over the last 450,000 years of Vostok core show that at all times of cold to warm transitions, temperature rise is follwed by a rise in CO2 some 800 years later. (Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature cchanges across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.) Hence the rise of CO2 in past climates is a response to warming, not the cause."

    Heaven and Earth p 402. Ian Plimer.

  19. How is it that, after 5828 posts, you have still failed to grasp the concept that the global temperature is a function of a number of factors, of which CO2 concentration is but one. No one is claiming that CO2 concentration is the only factor dictating global temperature, any more than availability of credit is the only factor dictating house prices. This means that short-term blips in both trends are to be expected.

    Why do you keep on wheeling out this stupid strawman?

    Because people like andykn keep coming up with stuff like this:

    Remind me which bit of CO2 causes warming, we are producing CO2, atmospheric CO2 is increasing, temperatures are going up,.....
  20. Remind me which bit of CO2 causes warming, we are producing CO2, atmospheric CO2 is increasing, temperatures are going up, has been "thouroughly disproved and discredited"?

    I thought that the best the antis could come up with was a few contrarian scientsits who all implicitly accept the above, just dispute the scale and required response.

    I bet you won't even tell us which of all the anti theories you disagree with (cosmic rays, solar activity, volcanoes) let alone present any actual evidence or reasoning.

    Global warming and a tale of two planets

    It might well be called "the tale of two planets". On one planet live all the Great and Good who have recently been trying to whip up an ever greater panic over global warming, as the clock ticks down to next December's UN conference in Copenhagen when they plan a new treaty to follow the Kyoto Protocol of 1997.

    There was, for instance, the three-day gathering organised by Prince Charles at St James's Palace, at which 20 Nobel laureates (including two African winners of the Peace and Literature prizes) listened to speeches from Lord Stern and Prince Charles, before issuing a declaration which compared the threat of global warming to that of all-out nuclear war. They also heard President Obama's Energy Secretary, Stephen Chu, solemnly telling them that if all buildings and pavements were painted white, to reflect the sun's rays back into space, this would be equivalent to taking all vehicles off the world's roads for 11 years.

    Then there was the 103-page report launched by Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, on behalf of something called the Global Humanitarian Forum, claiming, without a shred of hard evidence, that global warming is already "killing 300,000 people a year". But Mr Annan himself had to admit that this report, drawn up by a firm of consultants, was not "a scientific study" but was "the most plausible account of the current impact of climate change".

    Even this was topped by a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claiming that world temperatures could rise this century by 7 degrees C, "killing billions of people worldwide and leaving the world on the brink of total collapse". According to MIT, these projections are based on new evidence which has come to light since 2003.

    Now for the other planet, the one the rest of us live on. Here all the accepted measures of global temperatures show that their trend has been downwards since 2002, declining at a rate that averages to about 0.25 degree per decade. Yet such a fall was predicted by none of those 25 computer models on which the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the rest of the Great and the Good rely for their theory of runaway global warming. Their computers are programmed to assume that as CO2 goes up, temperatures inevitably follow. But the graph below, where the variation of global temperatures from a 30-year mean is plotted against CO2 levels, shows the two lines clearly diverging, contrary to the theory. In this century, temperatures have fallen as CO2 has risen.

    Furthermore, the Arctic ice has failed to disappear, as can be seen from the Crysophere Today website: it is now not far off its 30-year mean. Al Gore's polar bears have failed to drown. The ice in the Antarctic is actually way above its 30-year average. Except in the minds of Kofi Annan, Lord Stern and Prince Charles's assembled worthies, the threatened catastrophe seems not to be happening.

    Meanwhile, on the planet where the rest of us live, the prospects for a new treaty in December, which according to an estimate by the International Energy Agency would cost us all $45 trillion, are not looking too hot. The Chinese and the Indians insist that, since all this global warming is the fault of the developed world, they will only sign the treaty if we agree to pay them $300 billion a year. The Africans and South Americans make similar demands.

    But herein lies a mystery. Our own wonderfully sensible and honest MPs, it will be recalled, have already passed the Climate Change Act, committing us to restrict our CO2 emissions within 40 years to a level only 20 per cent of where they were in 1990. President Obama has committed the US to the same. Since these targets could only be met by closing down our economies, it is hard to know where we will find the money to pay the rest of the world what it is demanding. The real question we must decide in the years ahead is which of these two planets we are actually living on.

    Unfortunately, the graph referred to does not appear online although it is in my Sunday Telegraph hard copy.

    In any event, the point I wish to demonstrate is that your claim that temperature rises follow increased CO2 is by no means proven - there is still a lot of dissent out there.

  21. Your question just maps directly to "do we need government"

    ;)

    Yes, I think we do need government - but at a very minimal level. Along the lines of a central body that collects taxes so as to provide those communally desirable and expensive things such as administration of law (together with an awful lot less making of law) national defence, transport and energy infrastructures, and so on and so forth.

    If such could be achieved under a different nomenclature than "government" then I'd be happy to listen to any such proposal.

  22. I must admit I prefer singular threads on the same topic as apposed to multi threads, I think I am the only one around here who thinks that way.

    I have a good example of a scientist who was asked by the IPCC to drop the medieval warming period from his research although he didn't the reference is on this thread I will find it someday.

    This report now provides me with a credible reference for a paper I am presenting at major industry conference in October with a climate change impact on industry theme. The paper is about carbon neutral construction which is a silly concept and I am not the right person to be presenting but that’s life.

    Anyway this is shaping up to be a big conference and I intend to adjust the paper somewhat to say that the there is no need to do this and now that the senate report is published I have a credible reference to do this. The state premier is introducing the two day conference and I am first up after that so this is a great development for me and I now have a window of opportunity to plant some seeds and present the real case.

    All the best for your presentation - I shall be thinking of you in the coming weeks.

    It is reassuring to know that you are in a position to influence the debate. Glad to hear that you have been provided with additional ammo.

  23. Well ok, lets say we do a cost benefit analysis and it shows clearly that we'll make great economic savings as well as lessen the impact on the environment.

    How does that translate into having to act on the information?

    I know full well that if I give up beer and chocolate I will be healthier. I choose not to - nutriotnal information just informs my choices, it doesn't make them for me. Why would this area be any different?

    Imposed so-called altruism on threat of penalty - just how all totalitarian states work.

    For the good of the collective, the next generation, the old, the sick, the young, the single-mother, the whatever happens to engage the mind of the populace at the time, YOU WILL DO THIS!

  24. It is a very good question. This is where it's usual to wheel out cost-benefit analysis, kind of what Stern tried to do.

    Coming back to a subject I do know something about - health effects of power lines - as an example. If we assume that the case for childhood leukaemia is proven and we use the accepted odds ratio to work out how many extra cases per year there would be in the UK from kids living within, say, 50 m of power lines you get an answer of about 1. That's not many; the economist put a value of about 50k on a human life for radiation protection purposes, so you can quickly conclude that there's FA point in rerouting power lines. In fact, the number of people who would likely be killed by accidents in that exercise is significant - and that in itself indicates it's a bad idea.

    So - back to AGW. How do you put a cost on an uncertain impact ? You could probably do some cost estimates of the hit that insurance companies would take due to increased storms and farmers due to crop failure, and maybe also the increased cost of food if global agriculture suffered. You'd then compare that to the total cost of taking measures to reduce CO2 emissions to whatever level you think would avoid that outcome. Very difficult, I'd suggest.

    Or you could assume that at some point in the future such action will be economically-justified (which if you assume an ever-increasing problem it might well be) and then compare the costs of starting to make changes now with leaving it say 50 years and then having to make very much larger changes.

    I'd hesitate to suggest the outcomes of any of this.

    I'm actually just today writing an impact assessment on a possible piece of legislation so tis stuff is in my mind :)

    I'm not an economist though so the above is not gospel.

    That's the rational response.

    The case for AGW has been disseminated amongst the general public almost exclusively via an appeal to emotionalism - witness Al Gore's wretchedly inaccurate "An Inconvenient Truth."

    Whip up an irrational fear and then offer the equally irrational antidote.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.