The 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. This led to a critical appraisal of the report-writing process from a council of national science academies, some of whose recommendations were simply ignored.
Others, however, hit home. According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming.
It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century. This is vastly less than the much heralded prediction of Lord Stern, who said climate change would cost 5%-20% of world GDP in his influential 2006 report for the British government.
The forthcoming report apparently admits that climate change has extinguished no species so far and expresses "very little confidence" that it will do so. There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it. Yet the report still assumes 70% more warming by the last decades of this century than the best science now suggests. This is because of an overreliance on models rather than on data in the first section of the IPCC report—on physical science—that was published in September 2013.
Read more...
Submitted by Jim Wagner
10 comments:
Matt Ridley has been repeatedly debunked by serious climate scientists, notably for cherry picking data. An egregious example is this line:
"It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century."
The 2.5 degree number is the lowest estimate, and assumes we make major changes in our fossil fuel consumption, yet he uses that figure to argue we don't need to make those changes!
Overall, the Wall Street Journal is a horrible place for climate change information, for clues as to why, just look at the name.
Butler's last sentence tells the story. To determine credibility, always follow the money. Always.
Add to that the WSJ is now owned by Murdoch and the whole organization is no better than Fox News.
Plenty of big money in climate research and non profits too. There's a lot of incentive for worst case scenarios.
1127 Well, duh! When there's money to be made, the scientific facts about climate change (or anything else) become fair game to anyone who stands to profit. From those who profit from preparing for it, to those who profit from denying it exists. A role for every type of industry from energy to manufacturing to real estate. Even the wild and whacky world of non-profits, NGOs and celebrity has to sell their "product" to stay afloat. Follow the money, locally and globally. It's always an eye-opener.
Matt Ridley may be a "rational optimist", but his view that climate change is not happening is his opinion, and is not reflected in national and international governments research and studied science. (Matt Ridley profile, Wikipedia.)
Chances are Ridley's opinion maybe as much as "99%" incorrect. In the news, today's example from BBC News/science and environment, "Climate impacts 'overwhelming' -UN" by Matt McGrath.
I am waiting for Pacifica to fall into the ocean!
That will fix our economy!
The Local Libertarian said...
I am waiting for Pacifica to fall into the ocean!
That will fix our economy!
March 31, 2014 at 2:54 PM
Libertarian, do you have windows in the room you are in?
@ 5:04. Unlucky for Pacifica, I don't work at the city hall.
Amazing that anyone that disagrees with the dire consequences of global warming is immediately labeled as a right wing denier. There is evidence to make a case that both sides in this debate monkey with data to prove their case. So what! Take a look at any argument about any topic, say healthcare. Do you thing for an instant that MSN is cooking the same data that FOX is cooking. Only difference is core belief. Figures don't lie, liers figure-----on both sides of any argument.
Post a Comment