FOUR BRITISH ECONOMISTS COMMENT ON THE IPCC -- THE "VATICAN" OF GLOBAL WARMING

There are good reasons to query the claims to authority and representative status that are made by and on behalf of the IPCC, and hence to be concerned about the monopoly that it now holds.

To begin with, the principle of creating a single would-be authoritative fount of wisdom is itself open to doubt. Even if the IPCC process were indisputably and consistently rigorous, objective and professionally watertight, it is imprudent for governments to place exclusive reliance, in matters of great complexity where huge uncertainties prevail, on a single source of analysis and advice and a single process of inquiry. Viewed in this light, the very notion of setting consensus as an aim appears as questionable if not ill-judged.

In any case, the ideal conditions have not been realised. The IPCC process is far from being a model of rigour, inclusiveness and objectivity. In particular:

* Its treatment of economic issues is flawed. Writings that feature in the Panel's Third Assessment Report contain what many economists and economic statisticians would regard as basic errors, showing a lack of awareness of relevant published sources; and the same is true of more recent IPCC-related writings, as also of material published by the United Nations Environment Programme which is one of the Panel's two parent agencies. In this area, the IPCC milieu is neither fully competent nor adequately representative.

* The built-in process of peer review, which the IPCC (and the British government with it) view as a guarantee of quality, does not adequately serve this purpose, for two reasons. First, providing for peer review is no safeguard against dubious assumptions, arguments and conclusions if the peers are largely drawn from the same restricted professional milieu. Second, the peer review process as such, here as elsewhere, may be insufficiently searching. As Ross McKitrick has pointed out, its main purpose is to elicit expert advice on whether a paper is worth publishing in a particular journal. Because it does not normally go beyond this, `.peer review does not typically guarantee that data and methods are open to scrutiny or that results are reproducible.'

* In response to criticisms that have been made of published and peer-reviewed work that the IPCC has drawn on, the authors concerned have failed to make full and voluntary disclosure of data and sources. A leading instance of this, referred to in Ross McKitrick's evidence to the Select Committee, is the much-publicised `hockey-stick' study which featured in the IPCC's Third Assessment Report. The issue has been raised, with reference also to another case, in evidence which David Holland has submitted to the Review. In evidence to the Select Committee, Holland pointed to the need `to elevate auditing or replication above peer review and reputation'.

* The response of the Panel's directing circle and milieu to informed criticism has typically been inadequate or dismissive, a fact that was noted by the Select Committee and is well illustrated by the hockey-stick affair. The Response itself provides an up-to-date and conspicuous example: it does not so much address the arguments made by the House of Lords Select Committee as restate, reflex-like, the Whitehall and IPCC party line.

For all these reasons, we hope that the Review will look closely at the claims to objectivity and authoritative status of IPCC reports, and the claims to inclusiveness of its procedures.

More here





U.S. STATES TO PAY THE PRICE FOR THEIR MANDATORY CLIMATE POLICIES

U.S. States that are moving forward with legislation to address climate change through mandatory carbon emissions reductions and mandatory emission trading regimes will pay a high economic price for their policies, according Dr. Margo Thorning, senior vice president and chief economist with the American Council for Capital Formation.

The New England Governor/Eastern Canadian premier's agreement (CCAP) which would cap greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2010, reduce the cap to 10% below 1990 levels by 2020, and then reduce emissions to between 75% to 85% below 2000 levels by about 2050 would have negative impacts on households, workers and state budget receipts according to two analyses prepared by CRA International.

CCAP Impact on Economy:

* Loss of industrial production due to relocating of industries to other states where no emission limits exist;
* Increased energy costs;
* Reduction in overall household buying power;
* Loss of state tax revenues; and
* Unfair burden falls to poor and elderly.

A region-wide carbon trading program (in effect a tax) ensures that the marginal cost of abatement is equalized among the 9 states but the cost of buying a permit is high: $244 per tonne of carbon in 2010, rising to $288 per tonne by 2020. Consumers in the 9 states would pay a "tax" of 61 cents in 2010 and 72 cents per gallon of gasoline in 2020 due to the requirement that businesses must buy the right to emit carbon.

In Senator Snowe's state, Maine, the results would be dramatic:

* Job losses of 2,772 by 2010 and 3,229 by 2020;
* Household annual consumption falls by $2,303 in 2010 and by $2039 in 2020;
* State budget receipts decline by $71 million in 2010;
* Poor households pay an additional 3.8% of total expenditures on energy goods;
* Citizens over 65 years old pay out an additional 3.7% of total expenditures on energy; and
* Gross State Production declines by 1.6% by 2020.

While some states may now be contemplating adopting RGGI, which has less arduous targets then the CCAP, the negative economic effects on the states economies would still be significant. "Instead of striking out on their own to purse restrictive policies that harm their economies states should embrace current U.S. climate policies which focus on advanced technology and increasing energy intensity," said Thorning.

The CRA International analysis can be found at the ACCF website http://www.accf.org.

Source




A SCIENTIST WITH AN INCONVENIENT MEMORY

An email to Benny Peiser from Madhav Khandekar (mkhandekar@rogers.com) -- Retd. Scientist, Environment Canada with 48 years in weather & climate science

I would like to comment on the news item "Snow memories will melt away":

It seems Dr David Stevenson of School of Geosciences, Edinburgh has too much faith in the unverified computer models which project future climate for 2050 and beyond. Allow me to give an example of such a simplistic global warming projection made in an Environment Canada report published in early 1980s which categorically stated that in the next 20/25 years, by early 2000, ski activity in southern and central Ontario will vanish due to lack of snow as a result of global warming!

Let us look at the reality: snow accumulation in central and parts of southern Ontario has increased in last few years. This year, ski season opened in some areas of central Ontario by mid-November, almost one full month ahead of official/astronomical winter season date, December 22. There is plenty of snow at present in snow-belt areas of southern and central Ontario and more snow is being forecast for the next couple of days. Elsewhere, in eastern Canada, lots of snow has already piled up in cities like Halifax, Nova Scotia and more snow is on the way!

Climate models' projections made 25 years ago have no resemblance to reality. Climate models' projections made even five years ago do not resemble present reality. As I have pointed out in my Letter to Editor, Toronto Star, it is time to abandon the global warming projections of climate models. The models have NO CREDIBILITY!




KYOTO INSANITY

The definition of insanity, it has frequently been said, is to keep trying something that clearly doesn't work - like the Kyoto Protocol, for instance. The international treaty is supposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus reduce global warming, but it doesn't and won't - a fact that hardly prevented most participants at a recent U.N. conference in Montreal from urging more of the same.

Maybe they should have considered this: Even if Kyoto's assumptions all are true and that all industrialized nations fulfilled its goals, climate change would be affected by about one-tenth of a Celsius degree by mid-century. As one scientist emphasizing the point has said, that is simply insignificant.

Maybe they should have puzzled over reports showing that most signatories to that treaty have so far fallen well short of those goals while the United States, which was not a signatory, has performed better than a number of them. Signing a treaty can sometimes be a grand moral gesture - and only that, a gesture.

Maybe they should have granted that many of the scare stories about global warming have been successfully debunked. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia, for instance, showed what foolishness it was to claim tens of thousands of deaths from global warming each year - a piece of academic hysteria that makes you think the authors of a paper on the subject should start writing headlines for grocery-store tabloids. Michaels notes, among other things, how technologies reliant on gas-emitting fossil fuels have vastly increased life expectancy, in effect "saving a billion lives."

Maybe the Montreal conferees should have acknowledged that the costs of Kyoto would be enormous, despite what former President Bill Clinton said in a speech - that it would not hurt the U.S. economy. Experts from his own administration have said the economic consequences could be dire, but you don't have to be an expert to know you don't get something for nothing. For the sake of trivial results, Kyoto could inflict misery on hundreds of thousands of people. For the most part, those doing the suffering would be the most vulnerable among us, the poorest and least educated. Commentator James Glassman tells us of a study showing that one proposal for cutting emissions in four European countries could put 1.5 million people out of work.

Is there a better way? Yes, and the United States has found it. The Bush administration wants more study of global warming. Despite absolutist-like assurances from any number of newspaper stories, much remains highly arguable about the long-term rate of warming, the amount attributable to human causes and the environmental impact. The more we know, the likelier our solutions are to be the right ones.

The solution most favored by the administration is to develop ways of making fossil-fuel emissions cleaner and energy sources that do not send heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Its commitment for research is $3 billion a year. Among the countries it is working with along these lines are China and India, neither of which has signed on to Kyoto and both of which will consume whopping amounts of energy as their fast-paced development continues.

The bet here is that the U.S. approach - which is nowhere as dependent on governmental command-and-control as Kyoto - will be successful in ways that will far exceed any Kyoto accomplishments. The holier-than-thou Kyoto crowd doesn't see it that way, of course. They speak of the United States as isolated on the issue. OK. Fine. The United States is isolated, but sane.

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************