IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

[Big Fitz]

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

Interview: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Edenhofer, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of "dangerous emissions reduction." What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

--

Ottmar Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. The deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology will be co-chairing the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change” with Ramón Pichs Madruga from Cuba and Youba Sokona from Mali.

Told ya it's not about 'saving the earth from man'. It's all political and religious control.

 

[RWatt]

Told ya it's not about 'saving the earth from man'. It's all political and religious.

Yet halfway through he says:

" we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

Couldn't be clearer that the driving goal is to limit warming.

 

[Big Fitz]

Told ya it's not about 'saving the earth from man'. It's all political and religious.

Yet halfway through he says:

" we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

Couldn't be clearer that the driving goal is to limit warming.

and yet, there is no proof of manmade CO2 being a danger to our climate. ONly halfassed computer models and shell games.

Plus the fact that plants do well with increased CO2, mankind would thrive with a warmer climate, so if it is true, where, praytell, is the downside?

 

[RWatt]

Told ya it's not about 'saving the earth from man'. It's all political and religious.

Yet halfway through he says:

" we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

Couldn't be clearer that the driving goal is to limit warming.

and yet, there is no proof of manmade CO2 being a danger to our climate.

It's the lack of proof it's safe that's the problem.

If a drug company handed out a new type of pill everyone would naturally want reassurance the new drug was safe before they took it. Well imagine that the drug company responds my stating "there's no proof the new drug is dangerous!"

Doesn't help does it?

ONly halfassed computer models and shell games.

So the public ask the drug company whether they have done any testing of the drug at all. "Yes!", responds the drug company, "we ran a computer model. The model said the drug was dangerous to people, but don't worry it was only a half-assed computer model and we were playing shell games anyway!"

That doesn't help either does it? In fact, it raises doubts about the safety of the drug that the computer models, however half-assed, found the drug to be dangerous.

Plus the fact that plants do well with increased CO2

"So what evidence do you have the drug safe for human consumption?", the public ask.

"Well plants do well when fed with the new drug!", reply the drug company.

public: ...uh...what?

mankind would thrive with a warmer climate, so if it is true, where, praytell, is the downside?

"mankind will thrive with this new drug, so where's the downside?", argue the drug company.

"Huh?", says the public, "How can you conclude that without any testing and when your half-assed models suggest the opposite?"

"Well, no-one has proven it's dangerous and plants love it, so it must be beneficial for humans to consume", reply the drug company.

 

[Big Fitz]

It's the lack of proof it's safe that's the problem.

No no. You assert it's a danger. Therefore it is up to you to prove it's a danger. If I assert that Kentucky Bluegrass is a danger, I must show proof of it's danger. It's default state is, by historical standards, harmless.

You don't prove negatives.

If so, prove pink singing and dancing elephants don't exist.

So the public ask the drug company whether they have done any testing of the drug at all. "Yes!", responds the drug company, "we ran a computer model. The model said the drug was dangerous to people, but don't worry it was only a half-assed computer model and we were playing shell games anyway!"

That doesn't help either does it? In fact, it raises doubts about the safety of the drug that the computer models, however half-assed, found the drug to be dangerous.

Absolutely irrelevant and non-comparable to this discussion. CO2 has existed for the entire existance of and is not a threat to weather or life as we know it on this planet. This is a farce of an argument.

"Plants do well when fed with the new drug!"

Doesn't help.

There is great whopping evidence that increased CO2 levels in greenhouses increases the plant's growth. Why else do most commerical greenhouses look to increase CO2 levels? because the plants grow better. Do your research. A simple bing search will do. Or are you going to deny biology?

"mankind will thrive with this new drug, so where's the downside?", argue the drug company.

"Huh?", says the public, "How can you conclude that without testing?"

"Well, no-one has proven it's dangerous and plants love it, so it must be beneficial for humans to consume", reply the drug company.

Apples to manure spreader comparison. They're both involved in agriculture, but both are not fruits. Come back some day when you want to make an honest comparison.

 

[RWatt]

It's the lack of proof it's safe that's the problem.

No no. You assert it's a danger. Therefore it is up to you to prove it's a danger. If I assert that Kentucky Bluegrass is a danger, I must show proof of it's danger. It's default state is, by historical standards, harmless.

"No no", say the drug company to the public, "you assert the drug's a danger. Therefore it is up to you to prove it's a danger. It's default state is, by historical standards, harmless."

"we assume the drug is a danger by default and require you test it", argue the public, "and as for historical standards we note new drugs in the past have killed people".

"You don't prove negatives."

"Sorry", say the public, "but we don't think the drug can be fit for human consumption until it has been proven safe"

"Don't be silly", say the drug company, "you don't prove negatives"

"We are asking you to prove a positive, not a negative. Prove that it's safe", say the public. "maybe do some trials before you release it?"

"Look you are being totally unreasonable. Do we also have to prove pink singing and dancing elephants don't exist?", reply the drugs company.

Absolutely irrelevant and unequivocal to this discussion.

The models would only help if they contributed evidence that the drug (or co2 rise) was safe. That they hint it's dangerous is worse than if there had been no models in the first place. Slagging off the models is not evidence the subject matter is safe.

There is great whopping evidence that increased CO2 levels in greenhouses increases the plant's growth. Why else do most commerical greenhouses look to increase CO2 levels? because the plants grow better. Do your research. A simple bing search will do. Or are you going to deny biology?

"But we are concerned about the impacts of the drug when consumed by a person!", cry the public.

"There is great whopping evidence that the drug increases plant's growth!", say the drugs company.

"but how does that demonstrate it's safe for *people*", reply the public?

"It increases plant growth! Why else do most commerical greenhouses look to increase CO2 levels? Do your research! Or are you going to deny biology?", reply the drug company.

"mankind will thrive with this new drug, so where's the downside?", argue the drug company.

"Huh?", says the public, "How can you conclude that without testing?"

"Well, no-one has proven it's dangerous and plants love it, so it must be beneficial for humans to consume", reply the drug company.

Apples to manure spreader comparison. They're both involved in agriculture, but both are not fruits. Come back some day when you want to make an honest comparison.[/QUOTE]

The analogy is fine. In both cases we have something (drug, CO2 rise) of which the area of concern covers more than just plants. Eg humans, warming, ocean acidification, weather, etc. Arguing that plants will do well only covers a small subset of the things it will impact and so fails to demonstrate it's impact will be reasonably safe in so many areas.

 

[RWatt]

CO2 has existed for the entire existance of and is not a threat to weather or life as we know it on this planet..

It's the CO2 rise that's the threat. Not CO2 itself. It's the rate of increase.

As far as we know there is no past example of CO2 rising as fast as it is today. Is that shocking? Isn't nature so much bigger than man.

Well it's not so shocking if you consider all that coal and oil was laid down over millions of years and we are pulling it out of the ground, burning it and pushing all that locked away carbon into the oceans and atmosphere in a matter of centuries.

Kaboom

 

[Big Fitz]

It's the lack of proof it's safe that's the problem.

No no. You assert it's a danger. Therefore it is up to you to prove it's a danger. If I assert that Kentucky Bluegrass is a danger, I must show proof of it's danger. It's default state is, by historical standards, harmless.

"No no", say the drug company to the public, "you assert the drug's a danger. Therefore it is up to you to prove it's a danger. It's default state is, by historical standards, harmless."

"we assume the drug is a danger by default and require you test it", argue the public, "and as for historical standards we note new drugs in the past have killed people".



"Sorry", say the public, "but we don't think the drug can be fit for human consumption until it has been proven safe"

"Don't be silly", say the drug company, "you don't prove negatives"

"We are asking you to prove a positive, not a negative. Prove that it's safe", say the public. "maybe do some trials before you release it?"

"Look you are being totally unreasonable. Do we also have to prove pink singing and dancing elephants don't exist?", reply the drugs company.



The models would only help if they contributed evidence that the drug (or co2 rise) was safe. That they hint it's dangerous is worse than if there had been no models in the first place. Slagging off the models is not evidence the subject matter is safe.

There is great whopping evidence that increased CO2 levels in greenhouses increases the plant's growth. Why else do most commerical greenhouses look to increase CO2 levels? because the plants grow better. Do your research. A simple bing search will do. Or are you going to deny biology?

"But we are concerned about the impacts of the drug when consumed by a person!", cry the public.

"There is great whopping evidence that the drug increases plant's growth!", say the drugs company.

"but how does that demonstrate it's safe for *people*", reply the public?

"It increases plant growth! Why else do most commerical greenhouses look to increase CO2 levels? Do your research! Or are you going to deny biology?", reply the drug company.

"mankind will thrive with this new drug, so where's the downside?", argue the drug company.

"Huh?", says the public, "How can you conclude that without testing?"

"Well, no-one has proven it's dangerous and plants love it, so it must be beneficial for humans to consume", reply the drug company.

Apples to manure spreader comparison. They're both involved in agriculture, but both are not fruits. Come back some day when you want to make an honest comparison.

The analogy is fine. In both cases we have something (drug, CO2 rise) of which the area of concern covers more than just plants. Eg humans, warming, ocean acidification, weather, etc. Arguing that plants will do well only covers a small subset of the things it will impact and so fails to demonstrate it's impact will be reasonably safe in so many areas.[/QUOTE]
After reading a few lines of this post, I can safely conclude by quality protocol, this entire post is stupid. It does not address the issue but blathers on in a non-sequiter that has no relationship or similarity with actual testing.

If I were to apply the same quality of testing used in historical climatological testing, I would use only the first letter, and extrapolate the rest of what I thought was said by a computer modelling information from your previous posts and find it even dumber still in straight line progression where you will suddenly become so dense even light won't escape your posts and we will all die in a cataclysmic gravitational well.

This will manifest sometime next Thursday around 3:33:33pm in accordance with a Mayan Calender where the mushroom is replaced with a turnip and the dates recalculated.

I'm not going to play your silly little game of irrelevancies. If you want to learn how to troll by this method, seek out tardtard and find out how he does it.

 

[Big Fitz]

CO2 has existed for the entire existance of and is not a threat to weather or life as we know it on this planet..

It's the CO2 rise that's the threat. Not CO2 itself. It's the rate of increase.

As far as we know there is no past example of CO2 rising as fast as it is today. Is that shocking? Isn't nature so much bigger than man.

Well it's not so shocking if you consider all that coal and oil was laid down over millions of years and we are pulling it out of the ground, burning it and pushing all that locked away carbon into the oceans and atmosphere in a matter of centuries.

Kaboom

Did you lose your ticket for the fucking clue bus? Or is the bus not short enough for you to ride in?

 

[RWatt]

I urge others to read the preceding posts and see how they've worked. There are two key points:

1) Frame the issue in it's rightful place - as one where the onus is on skeptics to provide evidence that the ongoing CO2 rise is safe. This will neutralize the skeptic's primary weapons, which are doubt and uncertainty. You can't prove something is safe by exaggerating uncertainty in the science.

2) Analogies work great to cut through illogical arguments and make clear to any lurkers or laypeople just what the deal is. Anyone can understand the drug company analogy because everyone understands the danger of insufficient testing. Everyone understands the seriousness of the situation if medical models suggest a drug is dangerous, however basic those models are. Therein lies the skeptics' Achilles heel, for their arguments don't work if laypeople and lurkers can see through them that easily, and in fact even the skeptics themselves might be surprised as I suspect many of them don't realize how illogical some of their own arguments actually are.

 

[Big Fitz]

as one where the onus is on skeptics to provide evidence that the ongoing CO2 rise is safe.

So science is to prove a negative. Turn the entire scientific process on it's head to suit your political needs.

Gotcha.

Well you heard him, boys! Time to go prove that Bandersnatches, pernicious Knids and horrible Grues aren't real!

This is an intellectually barren and dishonest position for anyone to take as a debate position.

Analogies work great to cut through illogical arguments and make clear to any lurkers or laypeople just what the deal is.

Or more often by hacks to muddy the waters so their lies are harder to find by using the inaccuracies in the analogies to cover up the failings in their arguments. Oops! I wasn't supposed to notice that... was I?

Anyone can understand the drug company analogy because everyone understands the danger of insufficient testing.

We also understand that this is not analogous to the situation with climatology. You are trying to equate a NEWLY CREATED DRUG THAT HAS HERETOFORE NEVER been experienced in consumption with a molecule that is a minor component in our atmosphere that has never been shown to be a hazard.

A drug must prove itself to do the task it is designed to cure with as few side effects as possible. CO2, must also be proven to do the function you are alleging (in this case, warming the planet), and not only THAT but ANTHROPOGENICALLY PRODUCED CO2 must be conclusively proven to be a threat.

It hasn't, and we are waiting for any proof it is. Till then, there is no reason to do a damn thing to stop a threat that:

A- has not been shown to exist.
B- has not been shown to be bad for life on this planet.
C- has not been shown to be caused by mankind.
D- has not been shown to be able to be affected by man if it DOES exist.

Everyone understands the seriousness of the situation if medical models suggest a drug is dangerous, however basic those models are.

But before they will be approved must pass animal and human tests. Actual physical tests to prove both effectiveness, function and dangers. If you want to play this game with Climatology, YOU must come up with repeatable tests that can show this to be true. You haven't. Therefore, your assertion does not exist and should not be allowed to influence policy. And Nancy Reagan was laughed at for consulting with an astrologist! This is no better.

Therein lies the skeptics' Achilles heel,

Hardly. The chicken littles cannot prove their assertions even by this standard of junk-science.

for their arguments don't work if laypeople and lurkers can see through them that easily,

I do believe you've exposed yourself for the fraud you are. Quelle suprise!

in fact even the skeptics themselves might be surprised as I suspect many of them don't realize how illogical some of their own arguments actually are.

You mean like this:

The earth warms, it's man's fault.
The earth cools, it's man's fault.
If there is a flood, it's man's fault.
If there is drought, it's man's fault.
If there is an eruption, it's man's fault.
If there's an earthquake, it's man's fault.
If there is a hurricane, it's man's fault.
If there are blizzards, it's man's fault.

...and it's all because of western capitalism, industrialism and democracy. Never socialism, or any other political or economic system regardless of actual data. Every last one of those thigns have been attributed DIRECTLY to the tailpipe of American SUV owners via Global Warming by the chicken littles.

You mean that kind of logic?

You're not even a good hack for your faith.

 

[RWatt]

as one where the onus is on skeptics to provide evidence that the ongoing CO2 rise is safe.

So science is to prove a negative.

"We want you to prove the drugs are safe before you release them for sale", demand the public.

"So you want science to prove a negative?", replied the drug company.

"No", replied the public, "we said we want you to prove they are safe. How on earth is that proving a negative?"

Turn the entire scientific process on it's head to suit your political needs.

"So what you are really saying is that you want us to turn the Turn the entire scientific process on it's head to suit your political needs!", exclaimed the drug company.

"This isn't about politics, it's about danger to the public", replied the public, "all we are asking is you verify the drugs are safe before selling them. What's unscientific about that?"

We also understand that this is not analogous to the situation with climatology. You are trying to equate a NEWLY CREATED DRUG THAT HAS HERETOFORE NEVER been experienced in consumption with a molecule that is a minor component in our atmosphere that has never been shown to be a hazard.

I am equating the new created drug which has never been experienced in consumption with the CO2 rise which in it's rapid increase has never been experienced by human civilization, and as far as we know, nature itself. The analogy holds.

A drug must prove itself to do the task it is designed to cure with as few side effects as possible. CO2, must also be proven to do the function you are alleging (in this case, warming the planet), and not only THAT but ANTHROPOGENICALLY PRODUCED CO2 must be conclusively proven to be a threat.

A drug is presumed dangerous and cannot be released until it has been adequately tested to ensure it doesn't carry adverse side effects.

Likewise the CO2 rise should be presumed dangerous until it has been adequately tested to ensure it doesn't carry adverse side effects.

If you want to presume the CO2 rise is safe, then you must presume new drugs are safe too. There's no reason not to, other than if you were to be deliberately inconsistent.

It hasn't, and we are waiting for any proof it is. Till then, there is no reason to do a damn thing to stop a threat that:

A- has not been shown to exist.
B- has not been shown to be bad for life on this planet.
C- has not been shown to be caused by mankind.
D- has not been shown to be able to be affected by man if it DOES exist.

Didn't you stop to think how these would apply to the drug company?

"Here's a list we made", said the drugs company, "it shows there's no reason to do a damn thing to stop the drug being sold right now:"

A - the threat from the drug has not been shown to exist
B - the drug has not been shown to be bad for people
C - no threat from the drug has been shown to have been made by us
D - no threat from the drug has been shown to be affected by us even if it does exist

But before they will be approved must pass animal and human tests. Actual physical tests to prove both effectiveness, function and dangers. If you want to play this game with Climatology, YOU must come up with repeatable tests that can show this to be true.

Okay lets get climate models working near perfect. They haven't yet, so the testing phase is no way near complete. Until it is complete we can't go ahead with the scheduled CO2 rise. Well that backfired didn't it?

Because what you forgot, somehow, was that the release simply aint going ahead until the testing has been done. Now I don't know how you would fare as a test manager but telling your staff that the subject had passed testing just because you couldn't think of a way of testing it doesn't seem at all right!

The fact is that until it has been proven safe, it cannot be assumed to be so.

And if it hasn't been proven safe, it cannot be sold.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think an increase in Dark Energy is responsible for the melting ice caps and the killer tornado.

 

[daveman]

Global warming is about the destruction of wealth. You 'Conservatives' had better take a look at the cost of the weather disasters in the last 11 months. And what is happening right now.

Your masked slipped, Rocks.

 

[daveman]

No, he in no way shape or form suggests the 'Goal' is socialism. He notes, correctly, that it's difficult to divorce environmental policy from fiscal policy, and the 'Effect' is what you classify as 'Socialism.'

I'm not sure what you believe you accomplish by pointing out these statements. It in no way impeaches AGW science, nor does it in any way constitute fraud or dishonesty on the part of IPCC.

Spin away like deniers always do, but again, I'm not sure what you think you've accomplished. (other than, perhaps, giving Skook a raging boner)

I think if you'll examine the issue rationally, it's you that's in denial.

Well gosh, in denial about what, dave?

We don't seem to disagree on what is actually said. I'm just not sure what you think you accomplish by pointing it out.

Spin away like cultists always do.

 

[daveman]

By wealth redistribution he means if you put a cap on carbon emissions certain countries will be winners while others will be losers.

This part makes it clear this is about climate:
"Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

The implications are:

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this"

So where does the money collected go?

Hint: It goes to people who didn't earn it.

And if he want s to leave most of the fossil reserves in the soil, where is our energy going to come from? There's no alternative that will scale up economically.

 

[daveman]

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

Interview: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Edenhofer, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of "dangerous emissions reduction." What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

But everybody should take part in climate protection, otherwise it does not work.

That is so easy to say. But particularly the industrialized countries have a system that relies almost exclusively on fossil fuels. There is no historical precedent and no region in the world that has decoupled its economic growth from emissions. Thus, you cannot expect that India or China will regard CO2 emissions reduction as a great idea. And it gets worse: We are in the midst of a renaissance of coal, because oil and gas (sic) have become more expensive, but coal has not. The emerging markets are building their cities and power plants for the next 70 years, as if there would be permanently no high CO 2 price.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

--

Ottmar Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. The deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology will be co-chairing the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change” with Ramón Pichs Madruga from Cuba and Youba Sokona from Mali.

Told ya it's not about 'saving the earth from man'. It's all political and religious control.

Yes. I've been saying that for years as well.

 

[daveman]

Told ya it's not about 'saving the earth from man'. It's all political and religious.

Yet halfway through he says:

" we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

Couldn't be clearer that the driving goal is to limit warming.

And since there are no alternatives that will economically scale up to replace carbon-based fuels, what do you think will happen to industrialized civilization?

 

[daveman]

Yet halfway through he says:

" we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil."

Couldn't be clearer that the driving goal is to limit warming.

and yet, there is no proof of manmade CO2 being a danger to our climate.

It's the lack of proof it's safe that's the problem.

If a drug company handed out a new type of pill everyone would naturally want reassurance the new drug was safe before they took it. Well imagine that the drug company responds my stating "there's no proof the new drug is dangerous!"

Doesn't help does it?



So the public ask the drug company whether they have done any testing of the drug at all. "Yes!", responds the drug company, "we ran a computer model. The model said the drug was dangerous to people, but don't worry it was only a half-assed computer model and we were playing shell games anyway!"

That doesn't help either does it? In fact, it raises doubts about the safety of the drug that the computer models, however half-assed, found the drug to be dangerous.

Plus the fact that plants do well with increased CO2

"So what evidence do you have the drug safe for human consumption?", the public ask.

"Well plants do well when fed with the new drug!", reply the drug company.

public: ...uh...what?

mankind would thrive with a warmer climate, so if it is true, where, praytell, is the downside?

"mankind will thrive with this new drug, so where's the downside?", argue the drug company.

"Huh?", says the public, "How can you conclude that without any testing and when your half-assed models suggest the opposite?"

"Well, no-one has proven it's dangerous and plants love it, so it must be beneficial for humans to consume", reply the drug company.

Very poor analogy. There has always been CO2 in the environment. The new drug in your scenario hasn't.

 

[RWatt]

Very poor analogy. There has always been CO2 in the environment. The new drug in your scenario hasn't.

It's the rate of CO2 rise which is the analogy. There hasn't always been such fast a CO2 rise in the environment, in fact no prior example is known to science.