Iain Murray finally admits to the existence of anthropogenic global warming:
When I began working on global warming issues several years ago I was firmly of the belief that it was stuff and nonsense. As the scientific facts became clearer, however, my view has changed. It is quite apparent now that the Earth is warming and that mankind has quite a lot to do with it.
Oddly enough however, his policy recommendations don't seem to have changed:
So simply saying that the world is warming and that we know some of this is due to greenhouse gases isn't enough to justify drastic action that may cause more harm than good. Because switching to a low-carbon or carbon-free economy isn't a cost-free option. It will require significant investment and substantial opportunity cost. The latter is an important point. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a warmer world. The only reason to take action on climate change is because we fear that it will make the world worse for its inhabitants, specifically in the exacerbating existing problems of malaria, hunger, water shortage, coastal flooding and threats to biodiversity. Using the UK environment department's own research, US analyst Indur Goklany has concluded that the effects of global warming will be smaller than those of other factors in exacerbating the problems. Therefore, it makes sense for us to tackle these problems now so that there will be less to exacerbate in the future. It will be difficult for the world to do that while it is trying to absorb the immense costs of a forced transition to a different energy system.
Yes, cutting carbon emissions could result in job losses. And advocating such cuts could result in Murray losing his job at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
More like this
Ha. Well over at Inkstain *I* say:
Tim overestimates Murrays conversion anyway: Murray is still pushing "Contrary to the alarmists' protestations, we really do know very little about man's interactions with climate."; "the economic guesswork contains several basic, glaring errors that call into question the whole edifice". Murrays position is still junk.
and more. Ooooohhh the difficulties of choosing a forum...
A little while ago I predicted in a post on John Quiggin's blog that the views of the more cynical AGW "skeptics" would progress along the following trajectory:
1. AGW isn't happening.
2. AGW IS happening but the results will be benign.
3. AGW is happening and the result will not be benign but it will cost too much to fix.
4. AGW is happening, the results will not be benign and we must proceed to fix it as a matter of urgency. Whatever policies I'm currently being paid to shill will help fix global warming and should be implemented. (The actual content of the policies - e.g. a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran, compuslory sterilisation of criminals, IR "reform" to allow employers to harvest their employees' organs - will be largely irrelevant,)
Murray currently appears to be somewhere between Steps 2 & 3.
The logic seems to be - an economy centered in short-term gratification has created a threatening complex of climate-altering phenomena that are not clearly understood; but we can't do anything about it because any solution will involve a curtailment of short-term gratification, which is central to the economy.
"the views of the more cynical AGW "skeptics" would progress along the following trajectory:"
The four stages of grief over an economy based on open-ended waste?
Yes, that pesky old Lomborg argument again.
It would seen that more documentation needs to be made regarding the net negative effects of GW (AGW or otherwise). We have been running an experiment for the last 100 yrs burning FFs and living through a temp increase (related or not). Our standard of living is higher, pollution has decreased, the planet is greening, ocean levels have risen ~8inches ..... anything else?
Charles,
It's nto exactly analogous but it's worth notign that previous climate change incidents (not human-induced) probably contributed to the collapse of the Angkor civilisation in Cambodia and the Maya and Anasazi civilizations in central America.
The start of the Medieval warm period coincides with the German invasions of England and the start of the Viking raids and its end coincides with the famine and plague of the 13th century.
As an AGW skeptic, I feel Ian Gould's #3 comment misrepresents my position on CC, if not Iain Murray's:
"1. AGW isn't happening."
I disagree, I believe AGW is a component of CC, albeit very small. Swamped by other natural CC cycles
"2. AGW is happening but the results will be benign."
As for 1
"3. AGW is happening and the result will not be benign but it will cost too much to fix."
Disagree with the first part. It's not so much that it 'will cost too much' it's that there are far more important things to invest in. See Lomberg.
"4. ...policies..."
I believe pro-growth governments have realised that the CC debate is so politically polarised that arguing about the science is a no-win proposition. Better to capture the CC response policy debate by implementing more electorally platable pro-growth adaptation.
Whatever the answer turns out to be, the poor of the world will look back on this period and judge us very poorly for having wasted so much time and money arguing, when their needs were far greater.
Forester
Ian -
It's worth examining the Anasazi et al. to understand why they collapsed in the face of significant climate change. But it's also important to examine cultures that weathered the storms, if you'll pardon a pun, to understand what's the same and what is different about our situation today. This is crucial, in fact, given that however successful we may be in reducing greenhouse gas emissions now, we're still rather stuck with a significant climate change commitment and adaption is also going to be required.
Mr Fleck:
I am, of course, a fan of your blog, and I think Ian's post is quite clear. And I'd also add to the consideration the civilizations around Nineveh, ancient Egypt and eastern Mediterranean, and other such civilizations that overreached and collapsed in part because they depleted the soil and/or cut the forests.
[thx for the spell check, Tim].
Best,
D
I forgot to mention:
Warming concentrated in the high latitudes in the winter, thereby lengthening the net WW growing season. More people in the world after 100yrs but even more food (i.e. less starvation).
Yes, there are examples of civilization dying out for various reasons. But if you want to project dome and gloom you need to show a negative trend in some key parameter beyond slighly rising sea levels.
Forrester #8 has it right (as does Lomborg).
Hello charles.
You remember a negative trend in a key parameter being that total arable land won't increase because the hotter south will no longer be arable, don't you?
Sure you do.
Why do you still push that meme (other than a reflexive lather, rinse, repeat gene that expresses itself prominently )?
Best,
D
"I feel Ian Gould's #3 comment misrepresents my position on CC,"
Forester, I tried to distinguish between people who genuinely doubt that AGW is occurring and the (much smaller) group of people who're paid to try and cast doubt on the science behind the AGW hypothesis by the oil companies and other special interests and who cynically distort the facts and science to do so.
My comments were directed at the latter group.
"Whatever the answer turns out to be, the poor of the world will look back on this period and judge us very poorly for having wasted so much time and money arguing, when their needs were far greater."
I agree, but what makes you think they'll concentrate on spending on climate change research and adaptation and not on the considerably larger amounts we spend on, for example, cosmetic surgery and pet food?
"But if you want to project dome and gloom you need to show a negative trend in some key parameter beyond slighly rising sea levels."
You mean like a shift in those higher latitudes from precipitation in the form of snow to precipitation in the form of rain meaning more frequent and severe flood events and more drought due to the fact that there's reduced amounts of snow to melt progressively through spring and summer to feed rivers?
Most of the American south-west, western Europe, northern India and the Yangtse valley are currently dependant on snow-melt for a major part of their agricultural water use.
At a minimum a shift from snow to rain in those areas will require a gigantic reservoir building program costing more than the likely cost of reducing AGW.
>It's worth examining the Anasazi et al. to understand why they collapsed in the face of significant climate change. But it's also important to examine cultures that weathered the storms,
Certainly and we're much better-placed (obviously) than either the Anasazi or the Angkor.
I just think that people who point out (correctly) that climate has been variable during the course of human history can't argue that this means it's generally benign.
The Medieval Warm Period may have been great for the Vikings but the Irish (the principal source of Viking slaves) probably saw it differently.
13 Ian Gould
Sorry Ian(G), I came in half way and missed your distinction from genuine AGW skeptics.
14
Investment in scientific research won't be diverted into consumption of consumer goods, rather the grant applications will no longer have an AGW 'flavour'.
I intend no slight towards researchers in saying this, as we know, scientific breakthroughs in one field often begin in an entirely different field, and who cares where the money comes from.
Of course, this also applies to paid lobbyists, they'll find new clients to fleece!
Forester
"But if you want to project dome and gloom you need to show a negative trend in some key parameter beyond slighly rising sea levels."
Synchronistically relevant:
"Climate change: world round-up
The seven continents and their climate challenges."
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051114/full/051114-10.html
Ludicrously synchronistically relevant:
"In sub-Saharan Africa, meanwhile, increasing tropical rainfall could exacerbate the problem of malaria, already responsible for around a million deaths every year. The mosquitoes that carry the malaria pathogen thrive on stagnant ponds of water; more rain could mean more mosquitoes and more disease."
I await the flood of concerned articles regarding global warming denial, the greatest mass murder in human history.
Dano, Ian, Z,
You need to show a growing net negative over the last 100yrs and tie it as tight as possible to AGW (not just project doom and gloom into the future).
e.g. take per capita food production, per capita energy consumption, per capita GDP, average life expentancy ......
It makes no sense to focus on projections when we have 100yrs of experimental data available.
Note: This is what Lomborg did and we know his conclusion don't we.
It makes no sense to focus on projections when we have 100yrs of experimental data available.
Wow, that's really astounding reasoning. But charles, I've shown you the obvious, glaring flaws in this line of reasoning a dozen times. I don't have to show you, as I've already done so. Too bad QS is down so we can't revisit it.
I could show you yet again, but why? You'll ignore it and push your tout anyway. You won't respect my energy expenditure, so I won't bother.
This is the charles tactic, as the QSers know so well. I just acknowledged your presence here, chuck, and maybe occasionally will point out that something has been explained to you 14 dozen times yet you refuse to acknowledge it, as it will interfere with some tout.
Best,
D
"It makes no sense to focus on projections when we have 100yrs of experimental data available."
Huh?
Note: This is what Lomborg did and we know his conclusion don't we.
Lomborg is, let me put this is as delicately as possible, a lying fuck.
Additionally we DON'T have 100 years of experimental data with current levels of GHG emissions or anywhere near current levels.
I should point here that I am not a gloom and doom merchant - I beleive that human ingenuity and free markets can and will address and solve the problem og AGW and at a reasonably low cost.
Unless the shills and paid whores for dinosaur industries like Big Oil get their way.