Wednesday
Feb242010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Timmy in the Express
Feb 24, 2010 Climate: HSI Climate: WG3 Tim Worstall has a piece on the economics of climate change in the Daily Express, which is excellent and not just because he manages to squeeze in a reference to the Hockey Stick Illusion in passing.
Reader Comments (12)
The whole economics of Climate Change is a scam, as I have been commenting here sporadically for a number of months and the cheque has still not arrived in the post.
Seriously, it was an interesting article. The impression given by the environmentalists is that penitence has no financial limit, and is never ending.
But here it does have bounds. Interesting.
And I should note that I also bought the Skeptical Environmentalist many years ago and it opened my eyes in ways I expected it to.
The Express seems to be doing quite well lately. The Sunday version had the BBC pensions link to green investments on their front page a few weeks ago, too.
Refreshing article...sane, cool, rational thought.
OT, but did anybody see the blog piece in the Gruniad about Judith Curry, headed "Academic attempts to take the hot air out of climate science debate"? It showed up in Google news search (posted an hour ago, as of 1 o'clock today, 24th), but the link just goes to a Gruniad "sorry" page.
From what I can gather, Curry is advising bringing the blogosphere into the fold.
Turning Tide
article here.....
http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:http%3A//www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/24/climate-change-debate
Thanks, fran codwire - still no sign of it on the actual Gruniad - wonder what happened?
A refreshingly sane and well considered article addressing the real question AGW posits: If AGW is real; what to do about it?
Post Climategate to me, there are three possible scenarios. 1. AGW is a crisis with horrific consequences with rising sea-levels, droughts, floods, and more nasty weather. 2. AGW is real but rather trivial. 3. AGW is not occurring and temperature rise and climate change is entirely natural.
So what can be done if number 1 is true? Copenhagen proved "not much". So where are the UN plans to resettle the newly verdant Arctic circle since no one any time soon is giving up on fossil fuels...If AGW is trivial; well, it's just that; and if it isn't real, what's the fuss?
Climategate has shown shoddy science and self-serving charlatans at work - but besides quack science and politics as usual, it has also shown a tremendous amount of bad logic, unrealistic planning, and irrational thinking and statements from the media and our leading intellectuals.
If our collective intelligence and behavior has been accurately measured by our historic response to the so-called climate crisis; God help us if humanity is faced with a real world-crushing crisis.
I think Worstall has a point regarding the fuel taxes - however it's a pity that he spoils it by such shockingly stupid remarks regarding the science.
It's not true that the Himalayas aren't disappearing. And while I'm sure the Bishop's book is a decent enough representation of the 'sceptic' view of the hockey stick stuff, it is like saying the best way to learn about evolution is to read a book on intelligent design. As for recommending Lomberg, well, there are no words.
If I didn't know that Tim was generally regarded as economically literate, I certainly wouldn't have read beyond these howlers in the intro.
This is a problem 'sceptics' like Tim and libertarians/conservatives in general are going to face increasingly in the future, I believe - you have staked your entire credibility on a cross between anti-science and amateur hour, and you really shouldn't be surprised if nobody is listening anymore when you are back on topics you actually know something about. It is a great shame because ultimately this risks ceding the whole economic discussion to the greens, who are generally as clueless about economics as you are about science.
Frank O'Dwyer - exactly what is your specialty in which you are an EXPERT?
Have you read professor Ross Garnot's book - "Climate Change Review" which was comissioned by the current Australian Prime minister, before he rose to that great honour, and was intended to become the basis of the government climate change policy?
As you feel competent to comment on economic matters, you really MUST read this book.
It will make you roar with laughter.
His best lines relate to the academic research he reports with admiration, which claims that Australian beef and sheep could easily be replaced by farming kangaroos; all in the space of a little more than the next 10 years.
I explained this to my wife's cousin whose family have been grazing sheep for over 100 years.
He just looked at me strangely and changed the subject.
The government pretends to be introducing a 5% cap and tax, CO2 reduction regime, which, if their anouncements are to be believed, will alone save the world from a firely fate.
They were going to go for the 80% reduction by 2050 before their election, but wiser heads prevailed once they got into power.
Fortunately, the Australian Senate is unlikely to pass this wasteful bill, which will be allowed to die quite quitely.
"I think Worstall has a point regarding the fuel taxes - however it's a pity that he spoils it by such shockingly stupid remarks regarding the science.
It's not true that the Himalayas aren't disappearing."
A corollary of Muphry's Law there I fear. Anyone complaining of a factual error will make one even more glaringly silly in that complaint.
In one way the Himalayas are disappearing. They're being weathered down. In another they;re not, India is still moving north so they are still rising. but that's geography, not climate change.
As to the sciency bits....newspapers do edit pieces submitted you know.
Tim,
Indeed. Mea culpa. But mine is a typo, what is your excuse?
Obviously I meant the glaciers. Claims that those are disappearing haven't melted away at all. What did they edit out that would have made that statement OK?