Tuesday, April 10, 2007

World to End; Poor Hardest Hit

So says the IPCC. Of course, there’s no mention of the bounty to befall the worlds poor when economic growth grinds to a halt as a result of implementing the central economic planning needed to stop the threat of warming.

But not to worry, the costs of converting over industrial economies from combustion to some sort of alternative energy source are trivial:

“’We can fix this,’ by investing a small part of the world's economic growth rate, said Schneider [Stephen Schneider, Stanford]. ‘It's trillions of dollars, but it's a very trivial thing.’”

Of course if it was trivial, it would have been done by now. Or Europe would be meeting their Kyoto targets.

The other illuminating part of the article (well, in addition to making dire predictions without estimating the probablility of the prediction occurring) is this bit:

“’There is very high confidence that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases,’ said the statement on the first page of text.

But China insisted on striking the word ‘very,’ injecting doubt into what the scientists argued were indisputable observations. The report's three authors refused to go along with the change, resulting in an hours-long deadlock that was broken by a U.S.
compromise to delete any reference to confidence levels.”

So, when in doubt, obfuscate. Best not to bring up the degree of certainty surrounding the estimates.

And here’s a sample of the prediction:

“The report said up to 30 percent of species face an increased risk of vanishing if global temperatures rise 3.6 degrees above the average in the 1980s and 1990s.”

Pretty scary stuff. However, the IPCC estimated increase in temperature due to anthropocentric warming is estimated to be between 0.1 and 0.2 degrees (scroll to page 13 of the summary) per decade, or about 1.1 – 2.2 degrees of the forecast 1.4 – 5.8 d. C. .

Given that the main purpose of the IPCC seems to be to gin up hysteria to bolster the UN’s claims to run things – the process will only end in failure. No government will act to consign a significant chunk of their population to poverty to satisfy some Turtle Bay bureaucrat’s whim, especially over something that’s only a fractional cause of the perceived problem. They may or may not sign on to agreements, but they won’t enforce them.

For more on that topic, see the EU – all lecture and moral preening, but no compliance.