Report on economic impact of climate change by ex-cheif economist of WB

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Here's a link to the long executive summary (27 pages) of the 700p report by Sir Nicholas Stern, ex-cheif economist for the World Bank, on the economic impact of EGW:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/...ve_Summary.pdf

When economists are saying these things, you'd better listen - we listen to them about everything else!

Scary reading, but worthwhile.

[xrayzebra]

Here my friend is why their is so much fuss being made
about "global warming". It is another way to tax people
and countries and give to the have nots. Global Warming
is a farce. It is a movement that is socialist in nature.
Anyhow, it wasn't that long ago they were talking about
an ice age. Anyhow. Read away. Aussie Land cant
be far behind their Mother nation. Great Britain.

The Times October 31, 2006

Green tax on holidays and food splits Labour
By Gary Duncan, Economics Editor and Philip Webster, Political Editor
CONSUMERS could be hit by steep price rises for a range of goods from food to hotel breaks under plans to tackle climate change being considered by David Miliband.

The Environment Secretary is consulting taking sweeping powers to extend curbs on greenhouse gas emissions so that they cover many more businesses, including supermarkets and hotel chains — curbs that at present apply only to the big industrial users. The costs incurred are potentially huge and are likely to be passed on to the consumer.

The proposal to take “enabling powers” to extend the carbon-trading scheme to other sectors will be taken in the new Climate Change Bill, Mr Miliband confirmed yesterday.

But amid signs of a government split on how to respond to Sir Nicholas Stern’s report on the impact of global warming, Gordon Brown is to reject Cabinet calls for swingeing tax rises on motorists and domestic consumers, The Times has learnt.

Airline passengers and drivers of large “gas-guzzling” vehicles will bear the brunt of green tax levies, to be introduced by the Chancellor in his last Budget in March. But Mr Brown is opposed strongly to measures that would allow petrol prices to rise even when the world price of oil slumped, as proposed in a leaked letter to him from Mr Miliband.

The disclosure over the weekend of Mr Miliband’s “wish list” of taxation measures angered the Treasury and sources were blaming “rogue elements” in No 10 yesterday for its appearance over the weekend. Mr Brown was said to be upset because the leak focused attention on speculation about tax rises rather than on the central message of Sir Nicholas’s report; that if the world took concerted action on global warming growth need not be affected.

Allies of the Chancellor described the leak as an attempt to put pressure on Mr Brown and to test his modernising credentials.

When they appeared with Sir Nicholas at the launch of his report yesterday both Mr Brown and Tony Blair emphasised the importance of international action - rather than domestic taxes - to reduce carbon emissions. Mr Brown made it plain that he was pinning his hopes on a massive expansion of the carbon trading scheme, by which governments aim to reduce pollution through market mechanisms.

He suggested that the scheme, under which firms have to buy credits to emit more than a set level of greenhouse gases, should be extended by linking it with others in California, Australia, Japan and elsewhere.

The Climate Change Bill will enshrine in law the Government’s long-term aim of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. Thousands of organisations, from supermarket groups to hotel chains, are not covered by EU schemes limiting carbon emissions. The “enabling powers” would allow ministers to extend these curbs at will across the rest of Britain’s businesses — with potentially huge cost consequences. Many companies that broke possible limits on their emissions and were forced to buy “carbon credits” would be likely to pass on costs to the consumer.

The Environment Department confirmed that the powers could be used to extend curbs to “non-energy intensive” sectors. It said in the summer that measures for businesses not covered by the EU trading scheme, and which account for a tenth of Britain’s greenhouse gases, could bring carbon savings of 1.2 million tonnes a year by 2020.

David Frost, the head of the British Chambers of Commerce, said that the measures would amount to “stealth tax” in which “business becomes the villain”.

++++===++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I read a piece earlier today that said it would cost
the average English family about 1300 pounds a
year. That is a whopping tax.

[boutons_]

dubya will respond like he did in Aug 01 when told of chatter of attacks on US soil:

"thanks for your warning, you've covered your ass"

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

xray, you are ignorant. You have no idea about the science that has proven anthropogenic global warming, nor the possible impacts. Read the science then talk to me. If you don't want to read the science, read the link above - a 700p report BY AN ECONOMIST (ex-World Bank Cheif Economist) on the seriousness of what we are facing.

This has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with environmental catastrophe. At the moment we don't pay for the full costs of our energy and water consumption, but the days are long past where atmospheric pollution and water use were on a scale that had no effect on our environment. Do you have grandchildren? If you had read the science, you would be worried about the world we will be leaving them.

Where the does socialism come into this? There is a lot of money to be made in switching to a low emission economy! See, you don't know what you are talking about.

I really suggest you actually learn something before you spout off about this stuff, but then message boards are a breeding ground for ignorance, so carry on I guess...

Oh, and as for the UK taxes, I'd approach it differently. Drop income taxes progressively over the next decade to almost nothing, and at the same time increase consumption taxes in line with the energy and water that goes into manufacturing a product or service. Give people an incentive to save by taxing them directly on their consumption.

Couple that with globally capped CO2 emissions and a global carbon trading scheme - that would prevent absurd results like Brazilian ranchers burning down rainforest for pasture that lasts 3 yrs before it is exhausted and has no economic value, and producing 1000t CO2/Ha from the burning, while Europeans pay each other $15/t to reduce CO2. Under my scenario, the Europeans pay the Brazilians a carbon credit price for their land (in this case, about $15,000/ha) which they would otherwise be paying for carbon credits. The forest gets saved and placed in trust which prevents the CO2 emissions of burning it down, the locals get to improve their economic situation, and it doesn't cost the Europeans a dime more than it otherwise would.

Currently, burning of forests worldwide generates twice the CO2 emissions of cars and trucks!

And the cost of switching to a low-carbon economy? 1% of world GDP. I'll say it again, 1%. We can't afford 1% of world GDP to ameliorate a crisis that is changing the very climatic systems (and thus biogeography) of our world? Now THAT is false economy!

[xrayzebra]

I am ignorant and you are so smart. Well tell you what: Read the following little
article by someone is is a of smarter than either of us in this matter. This is
just a little of what I have read. Maybe it is you that should pull you head out of
the sand and read both sides of the argument. Prof. Gray has spent much of his
life studying the climate. He isn't the only one who says what he says. But you
should know of him down under. It is a socialist movement, has been from the
beginning and their agenda is to take from the rich and give to the poor nations.
Otherwise, why impose a tax? Why not just come up with other solutions. No
we must have taxes.

We have a water problem here in San Antonio, Texas. Why, because the politicians
and environmentalist (socialist) insist that we do. We obtain our water from an
aquifer, that no one really knows how much water is contained in said
aquifer. But many years ago when the only pumps that were available could
pull water from a certain depth it became the bench mark for measuring the
depth of the aquifer. There is a spring fed source of water in a town north
of San Antonio that has some type of rice and minnow (artificially introduced
minnow) that they claim must be kept flowing. So at about the depth set by
a court and politicians, we must cut back on water usage. Never mind that in
years past this spring has gone dry and both of the above species has survived.
Another crisis that is no crisis. Read and learn.

Friday, October 20, 2006

HURRICANES AND CLIMATE CHANGE: ASSESSING THE LINKAGES FOLLOWING THE 2006 SEASON

By: Prof. William M. Gray

WHO AM I TO COMMENT?

I am a Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University where I have been employed since 1961. I have been performing meteorological research, teaching, and forecasting for the last 53 years. I have participated in many tropical field experiments over the last 50 years. These experiments were directed to the study of ulus convection, condensation heating, evaporation cooling, sea-air energy-moisture exchange, hurricane formation, etc. These are topics of crucial importance to the physics of global temperature change. But they are not well understood by the human-induced global warming proponents. The incorrect handling of these moist processes is responsible for the major flaws in the human-induced global warming scenarios.

I hold MS and PhD degrees in meteorology and geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. Few professors of atmospheric science have had a finer group of graduate students than I have over the last 40 years (50 MS graduates and 20 PhD graduates).

I am well known for my Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 23 years. Making public verified seasonal hurricane climate forecasts (2 to 6 times per year) for 23 years demonstrates, I believe, an in-depth knowledge of the atmosphere. My overall 53 years of experience in weather forecasting, atmospheric research, and teaching is, I believe, more than sufficient to justify the credibility of my comments on hurricanes and global warming. I am more than willing to discuss or debate with any of my critics provided there is an impartial moderator.

I have never had a grant from the fossil-fuel industry. I presently do not draw a salary. I live off of my retirement income. To support my small Colorado State University research project I presently have two quite modest research grants, one from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for hurricane research and the other from Lexington Insurance Company (Boston) for US hurricane landfall probability prediction.

My main motivation to continue my research is to help maintain the integrity of American science which, in my view, has been badly compromised by the global warming issue and now recently by the issue of global warming causing more frequent and more intense hurricanes. Having received federal support for my meteorological endeavors for over 50 years and having devoted my entire career to atmospheric science, I also feel I have an obligation to speak out on issues involving my expertise. I would feel guilty if I did not do so.

[...]

10. SUMMARY

It is irresponsible to claim that the scientific debate on global warming is settled. A true scientific debate on this topic has not yet taken place. The debate that has occurred has been conducted largely by the media, the environmentalists, and the scientists receiving federal grant support to supply evidence of human involvement in global temperature rise. Most warming skeptics have been purposely ignored. Federal research funding for scientists skeptical of the human-induced global warming hypothesis has not been available.

Human-induced global warming scenarios have been in the headlines since the hot summer of 1988. These scenarios have been grossly exaggerated by a broad spectrum of scientists who know little about the processes of the atmospheric- hydrologic cycle and how the globe's atmosphere and oceans function in unison. It has been to their careers advantage to exaggerate human-induced global warming. They have received notoriety, career advancement, and research grants from their warming exaggerations.

Many of my older colleagues and I, who have invested decades of our lives in the study of how the atmosphere functions, have been appalled by the many alarmist statements issued by high-ranking government officials and prominent scientists who have little real understanding of how the atmosphere and ocean function. Their views have been shaped by selective sources, in particular the environmentalists and the large GCM groups, who have a vested interest in promoting the warming threat.

It is surprising that more experienced meteorologists and oceanographers have not spoken out about the reliability of the general circulation model simulations and the overly simplified arguments of the warming advocates. This may be partly due to the mild form of McCarthyism that has developed toward those scientists who do not agree that human-induced global warming is a great threat to society. Those holding contrary views have often been smeared as tools of the fossil-fuel industry, as if those warming advocates receiving large federal grants or grants from environmental groups were not also tools of the federal government or the environmental lobbyists. Our country has far more serious problems to worry about than human-induced global warming. Figure 17 shows the cover of Time Magazine almost 30 years ago when the majority of meteorologists and world governments were worried about and predicted a coming ice-age.

APPENDIX

How Did We Get Into This Warming Hysteria?

We will probably have to wait a few decades for history to fully explain to us what really has been going on during the last 15-20 years and how human induced global warming was thrust before the world as such a major threat. How was it possible to 'brainwash' so many scientists, government officials, the general public, etc.? We likely can't put all the pieces together right now, but we already know enough to speculate on some of the reasons which are listed below in no particular order:

1. The winding down of the cold war and the perceived need to generate a new common enemy so as to keep the public willing to continue to support the large science efforts typical of our prior perceived need to keep ahead of the Soviets.

2. The banding together of an international group of sagacious government leaders, scientists, environmentalists, etc. who wanted a science-based political cause to unite behind. Global warming was an ideal vehicle for their desire to organize, propagandize, force conformity, and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!

3. Natural causes of global climate change are not well understood. Who would be able to say with confidence that global warming was not human induced if you had no other physical mechanism to blame it on? Of course, many examples of temperature increase are going to be found during any warming trend. There has been a selective emphasis on observations of warming and a glossing over of data that shows no temperature change or cooling. The ignorance of other past historic events (Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age trends) and the many paleo-global warming-cooling events has also contributed.

4. The grant money desires of a broad spectrum of agriculturists, biologists, environmentalists, disease specialists, sociologists, weather and climate types, etc. New research missions to justify grant support needed to be found. The dangling of research funds is a powerful persuader. It didn't matter much if the globe warmed or not. What was necessary was to know what would happen if it did. Who among us would be stupid enough to criticize this 'need to know' if we could get grant support to study it.

5. The media's desire to profit from controversy of any type at the expense of critical evaluation. For instance, the surrender of media judgment by mouthing the verbatim views of almost any credentialed scientist out for notoriety, grant money, or who has a selective warming observation to show off. It makes for good press. Opposite examples of no climate change or cooling doesn't make news. Why discuss these examples?

6. It is interesting to note that most of the primary players in the international global warming crusade are credible and experienced scientists with well deserved reputations. Most of them, however, have had limited or no experience with real weather and climate studies and weather forecasting. They are being asked to make technical decisions on topics for which they have little or no background. They tend to believe what a selective set of politically motivated scientists tell them. But how are Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, or medicine (as brilliant as they might be) able to make scientifically sensible statements on the possible association of rising level of CO2 and global warming? They are just responding to the similar upward-slope of these two curves.

7. The universally recognized momentous contributions to society of the computer and the growing belief that almost everything coming out of a computer is numerically correct and valid. But computer output is only as good as input, and most of the GCM modelers have not put all the right things in. Computers only allow for a bad model to be precisely wrong!

8. The last 40 years of continuous improvement in initial value global numerical weather prediction out to 5-10 days. This has been a great success story. It has led to the false belief among many scientists (most of whom are without forecast experience) that this same approach could be extended to the longer climate periods.

9. The great technical achievements in the computer industry led to the encouragement of never before held beliefs that skillful numerical climate models could actually be constructed that would be able to deal with the gross complexity and infinite chaos of the climate system. All you needed was bigger and better computers.

10. The lack of understanding of the complicated physics of the ulus convection process of the tropics and higher la udes. This led to the naive assumption that climate modelers would be able to 'hop-scotch' over the sub-grid scale parameterization problems in their models and get results which had validity. They were wrong. ulus convection was too complex of a problem for GCMs to face up too. Right or wrong, the GCMs proceeded forward with their output runs not knowing how to deal with the sub-grid scales. They, of course, would obtain the inevitable global warming output that they wanted. And this created a stir that led to favorable publicity and continued grant support. After awhile the GCMers had gone too far to turn back. They were now too committed to global warming to worry about their sub-grid scale parameterization problems. Retreat was unthinkable. Global warming had to be the answer at least until their retirement.

11. The take-up of the global warming cause by so many celebrities to demonstrate their social consciousness. Global warming was an 'IN' and fashionable cause among the elite. That they had absolutely no technical background to make such judgments did not matter.

12. The overall 'quietude' of the meteorological community - many of whom knew better. We are scientists and should be above all this media-hype and controversial political in-fighting? To paraphrase John Burke, "All that was required for the triumph of human-induced global warming was that a substantial number of those meteorologists who knew better said nothing."

[George Gervin's Afro]

People like Ray and current day GOP will be ridiculed by future generations because of their ignorance. The argument that these folks put is foward is very simple. They acknowledge that the earth is warming but they claim it cannot be 100% proven to be attributed to human activities. So their response: DO NOTHING

[xrayzebra]

^^How do you, are you superior to Prof Gray? How many years experience do you
have in studying the climate? Oh, I know. Gore told you all you need to know and
you watch all the CNN specials on global warming.

What you know is what has happened in your lifetime, nothing more, nothing less.
Just maybe it would help if you did a little reading on both sides of the argument and
just not take everything said in the popular media as the whole truth.

[Sec24Row7]

I'm sure humans caused all the previous climate changes in the last million years too...

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'm sure humans caused all the previous climate changes in the last million years too...

well that's just stupid and simplistic. Another hush bimbo taliking point. We may not have been the cause in prior generations but we sure as are speeding up the process..is that a problem that you and ray can understand?

[George Gervin's Afro]

^^How do you, are you superior to Prof Gray? How many years experience do you
have in studying the climate? Oh, I know. Gore told you all you need to know and
you watch all the CNN specials on global warming.

What you know is what has happened in your lifetime, nothing more, nothing less.
Just maybe it would help if you did a little reading on both sides of the argument and
just not take everything said in the popular media as the whole truth.

For your information Ray I did acknowledge that it cannot be proven to be 100% caused by humans but instead of putting our collective heads in the sand why don't we try and be pro-active? You will acknowledge that ,while we are not the sole reason, human activities have had an impact.

[xrayzebra]

^^Oh, are you one of those, lets fix it before it breaks kind of guys?

If you don't mind, I would like to keep government out of my pocket and life as much
as possible. I already have government to involved in telling me I have to have
car insurance, wear seat belts, turn lights on when I run the wipers and on and on
you know low flush toilets, restricters in all faucets. People want them to tell
restaurants (New York) what they can serve or how they must prepare food.


By the way Gray's little article didn't ring any alarm bells with you? Strange I
thought he said everything really well.

[George Gervin's Afro]

^^Oh, are you one of those, lets fix it before it breaks kind of guys?

If you don't mind, I would like to keep government out of my pocket and life as much
as possible. I already have government to involved in telling me I have to have
car insurance, wear seat belts, turn lights on when I run the wipers and on and on
you know low flush toilets, restricters in all faucets. People want them to tell
restaurants (New York) what they can serve or how they must prepare food.


By the way Gray's little article didn't ring any alarm bells with you? Strange I
thought he said everything really well.

Libs are pro-active and Republicans are reactive. Is that what you are saying?

[DFW Spurs]

Libs are pro-active and Republicans are reactive. Is that what you are saying?

This is the at ude that's going to be the down fall of America. Blind faith in specific party’s ideologies is dangerous regardless of loyalty. What’s sad is there's no true difference between the two beside what they determine is important to the public. Gay Marriage, Abortion, etc... It’s the slight of hand trick to avoid the real problems in America... The rich get richer and the poor get screwed.

Personally I find this article enlightening... A different insight to the debate... Is the threat of global warming true, yes it’s real possibility, but we should always play devil's advocate.

[temujin]

I'm sure humans caused all the previous climate changes in the last million years too...

Yes, all in 20 years.

Like this one.

[temujin]

HURRICANES AND CLIMATE CHANGE: ASSESSING THE LINKAGES FOLLOWING THE 2006 SEASON

By: Prof. William M. Gray

WHO AM I TO COMMENT?

I am a Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University where I have been employed since 1961. I have been performing meteorological research, teaching, and forecasting for the last 53 years. I have participated in many tropical field experiments over the last 50 years. These experiments were directed to the study of ulus convection, condensation heating, evaporation cooling, sea-air energy-moisture exchange, hurricane formation, etc. These are topics of crucial importance to the physics of global temperature change. But they are not well understood by the human-induced global warming proponents.

Me, the Light.

The incorrect handling of these moist processes is responsible for the major flaws in the human-induced global warming scenarios.

I hold MS and PhD degrees in meteorology and geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago. Few professors of atmospheric science have had a finer group of graduate students than I have over the last 40 years (50 MS graduates and 20 PhD graduates).

This latter statement, even provided it is true, sounds pathethic.


I am well known for my Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 23 years. Making public verified seasonal hurricane climate forecasts (2 to 6 times per year) for 23 years demonstrates, I believe, an in-depth knowledge of the atmosphere. My overall 53 years of experience in weather forecasting, atmospheric research, and teaching is, I believe, more than sufficient to justify the credibility of my comments on hurricanes and global warming. I am more than willing to discuss or debate with any of my critics provided there is an impartial moderator.

Bring back to the spotlight.

I have never had a grant from the fossil-fuel industry. I presently do not draw a salary. I live off of my retirement income. To support my small Colorado State University research project I presently have two quite modest research grants, one from the National Science Foundation (NSF) for hurricane research and the other from Lexington Insurance Company (Boston) for US hurricane landfall probability prediction.

My main motivation to continue my research is to help maintain the integrity of American science which, in my view, has been badly compromised by the global warming issue and now recently by the issue of global warming causing more frequent and more intense hurricanes. Having received federal support for my meteorological endeavors for over 50 years and having devoted my entire career to atmospheric science, I also feel I have an obligation to speak out on issues involving my expertise. I would feel guilty if I did not do so.

The doomers and their damn global warning theories stole all my grants. And I am left with this ridiculous NSF grant.


10. SUMMARY

It is irresponsible to claim that the scientific debate on global warming is settled. A true scientific debate on this topic has not yet taken place. The debate that has occurred has been conducted largely by the media, the environmentalists, and the scientists receiving federal grant support to supply evidence of human involvement in global temperature rise.

The conspiracy of the doomers.

ùMost warming skeptics have been purposely ignored. Federal research funding for scientists skeptical of the human-induced global warming hypothesis has not been available.

Human-induced global warming scenarios have been in the headlines since the hot summer of 1988. These scenarios have been grossly exaggerated by a broad spectrum of scientists who know little about the processes of the atmospheric- hydrologic cycle and how the globe's atmosphere and oceans function in unison. It has been to their careers advantage to exaggerate human-induced global warming. They have received notoriety, career advancement, and research grants from their warming exaggerations.

Grants again. Ah those fat federal grants!

Many of my older colleagues

Older?
Joking or what?

and I, who have invested decades of our lives in the study of how the atmosphere functions, have been appalled by the many alarmist statements issued by high-ranking government officials and prominent scientists who have little real understanding of how the atmosphere and ocean function. Their views have been shaped by selective sources, in particular the environmentalists and the large GCM groups, who have a vested interest in promoting the warming threat.

Unlike the franciscan purists of the business-as-usual community.

It is surprising that more experienced meteorologists and oceanographers have not spoken out about the reliability of the general circulation model simulations and the overly simplified arguments of the warming advocates. This may be partly due to the mild form of McCarthyism that has developed toward those scientists who do not agree that human-induced global warming is a great threat to society.

Ah, so it does exists!
It's just that it is not a threat to society.
By the way which society?

Those holding contrary views have often been smeared as tools of the fossil-fuel industry, as if those warming advocates receiving large federal grants or grants from environmental groups were not also tools of the federal government or the environmental lobbyists. Our country has far more serious problems to worry about than human-induced global warming.

Indeed this WAS true.
It's somebodyelses's problem.
hence, non existant.

Figure 17 shows the cover of Time Magazine almost 30 years ago when the majority of meteorologists and world governments were worried about and predicted a coming ice-age.

APPENDIX

How Did We Get Into This Warming Hysteria?

1. The winding down of the cold war and the perceived need to generate a new common enemy so as to keep the public willing to continue to support the large science efforts typical of our prior perceived need to keep ahead of the Soviets.

I thought the large science and the fat grants were OK (see above), provided that they fell on the right turf.......

2. The banding together of an international group of sagacious government leaders, scientists, environmentalists, etc. who wanted a science-based political cause to unite behind. Global warming was an ideal vehicle for their desire to organize, propagandize, force conformity, and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!

"They" reformed the Third Kommunist International.......

3. Natural causes of global climate change are not well understood. Who would be able to say with confidence that global warming was not human induced if you had no other physical mechanism to blame it on? Of course, many examples of temperature increase are going to be found during any warming trend. There has been a selective emphasis on observations of warming and a glossing over of data that shows no temperature change or cooling. The ignorance of other past historic events (Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age trends) and the many paleo-global warming-cooling events has also contributed.

So, again, GLOBAL WARNING IS WELL IN PLACE.

4. The grant money desires of a broad spectrum of agriculturists, biologists, environmentalists, disease specialists, sociologists, weather and climate types, etc. New research missions to justify grant support needed to be found. The dangling of research funds is a powerful persuader. It didn't matter much if the globe warmed or not. What was necessary was to know what would happen if it did. Who among us would be stupid enough to criticize this 'need to know' if we could get grant support to study it.

Grants!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's becoming an obsession.
This article ain't about global warning.
It's about who gets the Grants!

5. The media's desire to profit from controversy of any type at the expense of critical evaluation. For instance, the surrender of media judgment by mouthing the verbatim views of almost any credentialed scientist out for notoriety, grant money, or who has a selective warming observation to show off. It makes for good press. Opposite examples of no climate change or cooling doesn't make news. Why discuss these examples?

Chicken or egg?
It's the politicians/GRANTED scientists cohalition
or
the media conspiracy.
Just, exactly, who invented the existing global warning?


6. It is interesting to note that most of the primary players in the international global warming crusade are credible and experienced scientists with well deserved reputations.

Ah.
I'll bet many are former friends.
Some among the ex PhDs and post-docs, even?

Most of them, however, have had limited or no experience with real weather and climate studies and weather forecasting. They are being asked to make technical decisions on topics for which they have little or no background. They tend to believe what a selective set of politically motivated scientists tell them.

Competent,
but idiots.
Interesting.

But how are Nobel Prize winners in physics, chemistry, or medicine (as brilliant as they might be) able to make scientifically sensible statements on the possible association of rising level of CO2 and global warming? They are just responding to the similar upward-slope of these two curves.

7. The universally recognized momentous contributions to society of the computer and the growing belief that almost everything coming out of a computer is numerically correct and valid. But computer output is only as good as input, and most of the GCM modelers have not put all the right things in. Computers only allow for a bad model to be precisely wrong!

I couldn't agree more.


8. The last 40 years of continuous improvement in initial value global numerical weather prediction out to 5-10 days. This has been a great success story. It has led to the false belief among many scientists (most of whom are without forecast experience) that this same approach could be extended to the longer climate periods.

9. The great technical achievements in the computer industry led to the encouragement of never before held beliefs that skillful numerical climate models could actually be constructed that would be able to deal with the gross complexity and infinite chaos of the climate system. All you needed was bigger and better computers.

10. The lack of understanding of the complicated physics of the ulus convection process of the tropics and higher la udes. This led to the naive assumption that climate modelers would be able to 'hop-scotch' over the sub-grid scale parameterization problems in their models and get results which had validity. They were wrong. ulus convection was too complex of a problem for GCMs to face up too. Right or wrong, the GCMs proceeded forward with their output runs not knowing how to deal with the sub-grid scales. They, of course, would obtain the inevitable global warming output that they wanted. And this created a stir that led to favorable publicity and continued grant support. After awhile the GCMers had gone too far to turn back. They were now too committed to global warming to worry about their sub-grid scale parameterization problems. Retreat was unthinkable. Global warming had to be the answer at least until their retirement.

Look, I have not started heating yet.
First time in my life.
I will make a prediction.
Won't start in one week.
Totally absurd by the 80s and 90s standards.


11. The take-up of the global warming cause by so many celebrities to demonstrate their social consciousness. Global warming was an 'IN' and fashionable cause among the elite. That they had absolutely no technical background to make such judgments did not matter.

Indeed this is the MAIN problem.
That all these jerks go out and talk about it is a major drawback to global acceptance of the phenomenon.

12. The overall 'quietude' of the meteorological community - many of whom knew better. We are scientists and should be above all this media-hype and controversial political in-fighting? To paraphrase John Burke, "All that was required for the triumph of human-induced global warming was that a substantial number of those meteorologists who knew better said nothing."

There is preciously nothing in this that argues AGAINST a human causative input of global warning.
Give his Grant back to the old man, please.

[xrayzebra]

Love the phrase: "causative input of global warming". Now just what is suppose
to mean. More ambiguous BS.

[temujin]

Love the phrase: "causative input of global warming". Now just what is suppose
to mean. More ambiguous BS.

It is supposed to mean that global warning IS taking place -as correctly stated by this Emeritus- and that one animal species on this planet is causing global warning.
As to which one is it, well, it takes some article of another Emeritus.
Zoologist, this time.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Ray, when you have a chance go to some universities with climatology departments, or ecology departments, and talk to the scientists. I challenge you to find ONE who doesn't support the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

Please link your article - I want to look at it properly.

A recent study of 928 peer-reviewed journal articles related to climate found that none disagreed with the consensus (I posted it last week). A counter-article then stated that it found 34 out of 1117 articles that showed some doubt, but when pressed the author could only cite one article and admitted that his sample was different to that of the first author.

The greatest scientific minds and organisations in the world have been ac ulating evidence about this for 30 years - 5 years ago there was still some debate about what was happening, today there is none. Scientific consensus has been achieved. And yet you are asking me to take the word of Professor Gray over the rest of the world's scientists? There ARE NOT many others who agree with him, as you claim, and even the greatest skeptic of them all, Bjorn Lomberg of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" fame has now admitted that EGW is taking place. Leading business forums and economists across the world are now working out what we have to do and how much it will cost. When business leaders start investing money in it, as they are right now, you know the science is pretty strong.

I am an ecologist studying towards my PhD, and I have read the science, and it is highly convincing. This IS NOT some socialist conspiracy to shift money to poor nations - that doesn't even make sense! How are we going to shift this money to them, and why? The money involved in lowering carbon emissions will go to the industrial sectors of developed nations (the third world's carbon emissions are negligible), and any taxes govts are bringing into the mix are part of a price signal to reduce demand for high carbon products, or a mechanism for shifting investment towards clean industry.

Ray, read the executive summary of the Stern report. Learn something. Right now you are not even making sense.

I'm getting really sick of debating this with people who site one source (usually funded by the petroleum lobby) or one retired scientist, and then presume that to be a more powerful argument than that put forward by the sum of the greatest scientific ins utions in the world! It's plainly ludicrous. And if you actually take time to look at the science (ie. read a few articles in Nature or Science, or a good book like "The Weathermakers" which puts all of the pieces together from primary sources, and is fully referenced for follow-up), you can plainly see how the scientific community has come to the conclusion that we are causing climate change.

Oh, and Ray, I was a skeptic about climate change. Throughout the 90s I thought "nah, we can't affect the earth", then I actually started to look at the scale of human activities in terms of the way we have modified the environment, and I started to look at the science, and the evidence has gotten stronger and stronger to the point where it is pretty difficult to refute. Burying your head in the sand does not make that go away.

[jochhejaam]

Ray, when you have a chance go to some universities with climatology departments, or ecology departments, and talk to the scientists. I challenge you to find ONE who doesn't support the scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change.

Please link your article - I want to look at it properly.

Here's one link to it RnR.

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2006/1...te-change.html

[LaMarcus Bryant]

Where is hegamboa when it comes to climate change? He has scientific credentials but only uses them in a religious context. Go figure.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Marcus, I am also a scientist (in training), although I suppose my credentials don't matter unitl I have a PhD and 5 publications under my belt. However, I'm not an idiot, and I am a born skeptic, and I have read a lot of the science, and it does not appear to me to be the basis for a worldwide conspiracy of scientists to overthrow good sense. The science may be the start of some semblence of good sense coming into the world (if we are smart enough to act on it).

Ray, I dug up the original source of Professor Gray's address, and it was a speech to the George C. Marshall Ins ute "WASHINGTON ROUNDTABLE ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY" on 11 Oct 2006 (click on the "source" link at the bottom of Jo's link to find it).

Now, the George C Marshall Ins ute is partly funded, not surprisingly, by the fossil fuel lobby:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...hall_Ins ute

and I would speculate that our Professor Gray was the only scien st with any credentials that they could get to speak. Note also that he lives "off his retirment savings", so the $10K or $20K they pay for him to speak is no doubt helpful in his dotage.

As for Professor Gray's discussion on the "hysteria" surrounding EGW, sadly he is correct to a point - the debate has been hijacked in the media by extremes of both camps. Joche and I discussed this at length here:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...climate+change

particularly the case of eminent German climatologist Has von Storch, whose views were widely misrepresented - you ought to read his address to the US House of Reps (linked in the thread).

Funny how a little research reveals a lot about these prominent "dissenters", as I revealed in the thread with joche, many of whom are either non-scientists paid by Exxon, or scien st who have been misquoted or were trying to make a different point to the matter at hand.

As for Gray's contention that other scientists, including climatologists all over the world, don't properly understand the hydrological cycle and ocean-atmospheric interactions, huh? So he is the only scientist in the world who REALLY understands these things? Is he the only one who is right while all the others are wrong? I don't think so.

If I had time I could list you 50 ins utes across the world who have thousands of scientists working on these very matters, and yet they are all co-opted and working together in a massive peer-reviewed conspiracy to defraud the world!? Wake up, ray, please! If this makes sense to you, then we may as well stop discussing this because you are clearly insane.

Try looking at the ACIA, the IPCC, the EEA, the CSIRO, the US EPA, etc. etc. Try looking at the websites of the Ivy League universities, or Oxford/Cambridge, or my alma mater the ANU (16th best university in the world). Try understanding the science, then examine the claims of the skeptics. That's what I've done, and frankly, the few skeptics that there are today are wrong or flip-flopping their position to the other side, like Lomborg.

This thing is real, and if we don't do anything about it, at the very least it is going to cost us trillions, and at the worst it could lead to the disintegration of our civilisation. You don't seem to appreciate just how finely balanced the world's climate had to be to spawn the settling of humanity over the last 8000yrs. To put that in perspective, there is only a 5C difference between the last ice age and the present warm period. A 2-3C change is enough to vastly remodel the planet. Think about that for a moment, and READ THE GODDAMN REPORT!

[PixelPusher]

Relax Ruff, Tony Snow says Dubya is on the case...

Snow: President Bush Has ‘Actually Taken The Lead’ On Climate Change
(click link above to view video)

Today White House Press Secretary Tony Snow stated that “contrary to stereotype,” President Bush has been “actively engaged in trying to fight climate change.” He also took issue with a reporter’s comment that the United States has been absent from a global emissions and cap trade program, arguing that the Bush administration has “actually taken the lead on those kinds of innovations.” Watch it:

President Bush has taken very little real action to fight climate change and even refuses to admit that it is manmade. He broke his promise to cap carbon emissions and insists that global warming can be fought through individual “voluntary” programs.

Despite being the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States has refused to participate in the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement that assigns mandatory targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Between 1990 and 2004, emissions of all industrialized countries decreased by 3.3 percent, but in U.S. emissions grew by almost 16 percent in that same period and now accounts for approximately two-fifths of the industrialized world’s greenhouse gases.

The rest of the world is leading and the Bush administration isn’t following.

Full transcript below:

SNOW: The President has in fact, contrary to stereotype, been actively engaged in trying to fight climate change and will continue to do so.

REPORTER: The one area that is notably absent and that even S Oil and other major players are calling for is a global mandatory emissions cap and trade program. Unless do you this on an international basis, it’s not in the long-term economic interest of the United States, which seems to be one of your arguments that somehow will benefit the United States in the long-term.

SNOW: Well, what the United States has done is we have actually taken the lead on those kinds of innovations.

The sad thing about this is, Snow can get away with such blatant bull cause they're only interested in soothing their "FOX News only" base.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

These lying SOB fossil fuel lobbyists, and the lying SOBs in our governments who take their policy cues from them, are going to be labelled as environmental criminals by generations to come. Their graves will be spat upon by our grandchildren, and rightly so.

About 1% of world GDP for the next 45yrs will allow us to stabilise CO2 at 500-550ppm (natural levels over past 10,000yrs; 200-280, 200 during cooler periods, 280 during warmer periods), hopefully containing the temperature rise below 2C and saving roughly 9 trillion dollars in costs associates with climate change.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Pixel, that is SOOOOOOOO funny! Bush has been actively IGNORING and MISINFORMING about climate change science for as long as he's been in the public eye. What a joke.

Oh, and my CO2 emission figures for the US are old - I thought it was around 30% of world total, this article says 40%.

And the ultimate irony:

"S Oil and other major players are calling for is a global mandatory emissions cap and trade program. Unless do you this on an international basis, it’s not in the long-term economic interest of the United States, which seems to be one of your arguments that somehow will benefit the United States in the long-term."

They want a cap and trade system so that the marketplace has certainty and can start investing in mitigation technologies. The uncertainty caused by lack of a global trading scheme is stifling investment in better technology! Get on with the trading, and suddenly we will see a clean, renewable energy boom much akin to the oil and infotech booms of last century!

(they also want a global scheme so they can seek to lobby it into the shape they want, but let's just ignore that for the moment and hope that any scheme that is devised will largely exclude vested interests)

[xrayzebra]

Okay, here is Dr. Gray's slide show that accompanied his talk. You are supposedly
a scientist in the making so you may be interested in all the slides. Obviously, like
many others you have already made up you mind on the subject. I haven't. Too
many politicians are cutting their teeth, see Mr. Al Gore, the idiot, on the subject. Be
warned that this presentation is 61 pages long and some of his slide comments will
no doubt offend you. Since in your opinion he is a scientist on the take.

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/461.pdf

I happen to respect the gentleman since he is the go to guy on hurricanes. And
has been proven correct in most of his long range predictions on major storms. But
you are en led to your opinions. Like I am to mine.

Remember something, everyone said the world was flat at one time.