While some people want to endlessly debate the “science” of AGW and will get extremely heated about how many Tim Flannerys or Al Gores could dance on the head of a pin* the reality is that the further into the future that you try to predict anything the greater your potential for error actually is. And once you get up past the coming weeks or months such predictions become as fanciful as the writing of Lewis Carroll or Jonathan Swift. Not that such a thing will impinge upon the beliefs of your average Warminsta…
The piece from today’s Oz that I quote below points out the problems with such prognostications.**
A frequent commentator on carbon reduction schemes, Professor McKibbin said the carbon pollution reduction scheme proposed in a green paper, and the subject of an upcoming white paper, was the result of a “diabolical policy process” and risked disadvantaging Australia in global markets.
Speaking at a Committee for the Economic Development of Australia lunch in Brisbane, the economics professor said the Garnaut Report, released on September 30, was originally commissioned by the states, partly as a political tool to attack the federal Coalition, and has since had to be embraced by the incoming Labor Government.
He questioned whether that required Climate Change Department secretary Martin Parkinson to have a “schizophrenic” approach to policy development.
But Professor McKibbin, from the Australian National University, was most critical of Treasury’s long-term economic modelling, which was used by the Rudd Government to allay fears an emissions trading scheme would damage the economy. While partly involved in the modelling, Professor McKibbin said he was not responsible for the scenarios and believed it was “stretching the imagination” to believe you could forecast 100 years in advance and use that process to determine targets.
“I don’t think we can calculate cost-benefit analysis over 100 years into the future,” Professor McKibbin said.
“We just have very poor tools at our disposal to work out what the costs will be, or what the world economy will look like, in 2100, just as we didn’t have a really good idea at the turn of the 20th century, in 1900, what the world would look like today.“
(my bold)
What we can be sure of is that once it comes to predicting the future a hundred years from now is that we can have as much faith in a soothsayer examining the entrails of a chicken as we can in the Climate scientists and economists, slaving over their computer models and we could at least make a tasty meal out of the poor chicken.
Cheers Comrades
*The number can not of course be determined, but as the latter gent is of a more corpulent stature it is clear that more Tim Flannerys could dance there than Al Gores though
** I love this word too Ray
Filed under: AGW and climate change, Australian Politics, Carbon Trading, Federal politics, Global Warming, God bothering, Green Hypocrites, Leftism, Living with Nature | Tagged: Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Warwick McKibbin
From Erl Happ. Very good article on the Earth’s temperature cycles.
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/erl-happ_climatechange_wij_23_4.pdf
Shawn: a very interesting article! Whilst I have had a bit to say in various blogs and forums on the technicalities of CO2 emissions, methane and the like, I am in no way convinced that global warming is the real boogie-man it is portrayed.
I feel there is too much material (like this article) which does not see the light of day because the whole thing quickly turns into a witch-hunt. There are a lot of reputable scientists refuting it to be sure! Perhaps the only saving grace will be that pro greenhousers won’t burn the heretics due to possible emissions! There is evidence (from ancient tree leaves) that CO2 levels have been close to this high before and certainly much higher than they were in 1958 when Dr Keeling started this ruckus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve
As a point of interest taking up on Erl Happs concluding comments, I understand it is not uncommon practice to add CO2 to a real greenhouse to assist the plants to “breathe” and that the (relatively low)atmospheric CO2 levels are virtually at suffocation point for the poor plants. What if the plants were causing CO2 levels to increase for their own good through some biological/evolutionary twist… maybe even to get rid of pests like us! Where do the Greens stand if this were to be the case I wonder? From what I have seen we would rate a poor second.
We have a large greenhouse operation around here and it is common to see tankers carrying CO2 to the greenhouses.
Check out this site
Climate Debate Daily
Yes Shawn i have often thought that the stimulatory effect on plants of increased Co2 is something never considered in the models.
This however is proof that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
The climate is way to complicated for the current models. We are currently experiencing January weather in November and not a peep from the press.
Snow on the ground and below freezing low temps every day.
I wonder if JM froze up? Is he in England?
I think He is here in Australia Shawn
The nearby snow forecast.
I want my global warming back.
Can I blame this early Winter on JM?
” Local snowfall amounts of 30 to 40 centimetres appear likely tonight into Friday morning”
“Colossal snowfall totals in excess of 50 centimetres are possible near the south end of Lake Huron from this event by the time it weakens on Saturday ”
site