"Bruce Sinclair" <bruce.sinclair@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote in message news:fvoqfj$pql$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <RTQTj.73885$dA2.12034@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "V-for-Vendicar" <Justice@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>"mrbawana2u" <mrbawana2u@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>> And yet 387.19 ppmv is still insignificant.
>> Significant to cause a temperature rise of 1.3'C
Huh? Where?
TOTAL warming last century was about 0.6 F, most of which has been
reversed
by the cooling of the last ten years.
> To anyone interested in this 'debate' (I haven't seen much here :) ),
> I
> suggest you get and read the summary of the stern report. He states
> his
> assumptions and details his data. He is also an economist, and, using
> the
> precautionary principle (as you should if the consequences could be
> disasterous), suggests that if we do something now, it costs us almost
> nothing (a small decrease in growth). If we wait 20 years, and there
> is a
> problem, it will cost us heaps.
> What is the clever response ? Read the summary at least before you
> answer.
The clever response assuming that AGW bunkum has even a grain of truth,
is to do nothing!
Stern's basic conclusion, assuming that AGW bunkum has even a grain of
truth,
is that we would be slightly warmer but much richer if we did nothing.
QUOTE: "The surprising conclusion using the Stern Review's own
estimates," Dr. Goklany writes, "is that future generations will be
better off in the richest but warmest" of the I.P.C.C.'s scenarios. He
concludes that cutting emissions will do much less good than encouraging
sustainable development in poor countries and policies of "focused
adaptation" to deal with disease and environmental problems like coastal
flooding. For a fifth the cost of the Kyoto Protocol
Stern Rant Is Total Bilge
February 10, 2008
Indury Goklany checks the Stern Report - so influential in persuading
Kevin Rudd we were doomed if we didn't slash emissions - and discovers
it's as flawed as so many experts say:
Analysis using both the Stern Review and the fast-track assessment
reveals that notwithstanding climate change, for the foreseeable future,
human and environmental well-being will be highest under the
"richest-but-warmest" scenario and lower for the poorer (lower-carbon)
scenarios....
John Tierney summarises the argument:
"The surprising conclusion using the Stern Review's own estimates," Dr.
Goklany writes, "is that future generations will be better off in the
richest but warmest" of the I.P.C.C.'s scenarios. He concludes that
cutting emissions will do much less good than encouraging sustainable
development in poor countries and policies of "focused adaptation" to
deal with disease and environmental problems like coastal flooding. For
a fifth the cost of the Kyoto Protocol, he calculates, these adaptation
policies could yield more immediate and also long-term benefits than
would a policy that entirely halted global warming (which would cost
far, far more than Kyoto). He argues that this path isn't merely an
economic but also a moral imperative.
Back to Goklany himself:
For the foreseeable future, people will be wealthier-and their
well-being higher-than is the case for present generations both in the
developed and developing worlds and with or without climate change. The
well-being of future inhabitants in today's developing world would
exceed that of the inhabitants of today's developed world under all but
the poorest scenario. Future generations should, moreover, have greater
access to human capital and technology to address whatever problems they
might face, including climate change. Hence the argument that we should
shift resources from dealing with the real and urgent problems
confronting present generations to solving potential problems of
tomorrow's wealthier and better positioned generations is unpersuasive
at best and verging on immoral at worst.
Of course, our own Productivity Commission has more fundamental problems
with Stern's Report - as in, it's a dog's breakfast of exaggerations,
assumptions and plain mistakes.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudds_guru_overheated/
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a
25-year Rise" New York Times, March 27, 1933
|
