Andrew Bartlett is wrong
Andrew Bartlett gets it wrong in his most recent AC post:
People are entitled to believe that the main scientific opinion regarding climate change is wrong, but with governments from virtually every country – as well as most scientists and the majority of the public - believing otherwise, the debate now has to be focussed 100 percent on what actions now need to be taken.
It is by no means certain that any money spent attempting to halt or even slow climate change will be money well spent. The way it looks, the planet is going to warm no matter what. So perhaps money would be better spent on adapting to a warmer Earth. Or perhaps expenditures should be calculated on the most cost effective mix of carbon emission reductions and climate change adaptations.
Total focus on emissions reductions is a classic example of "putting all of your eggs in one basket". If this money was to be spent on a certainty, fine, but it isn't.
There simply isn't enough money to both attempt to halt climate change and to fund strategies designed to help those most affected cope with a changing climate. The risks and benefits need to be carefully considered and funds allocated for the greatest overall benefit.
posted by Anonymous at 4:04 PM |
3 Comments:
I would assert Andrew Bartlett is right (seeing I am completely objective on the topic, of course).
As your highlighted quote says, "the debate now has to be focussed 100 percent on what actions now need to be taken."
Actions (plural) do not need to be limited to emissions reduction. Indeed, one of the few semi-achievements of the Copenhagen summit was a recognition of the need to provide funds for poorer coutnries to deal with climate change. I expect at least in part this will be used for mitigation or damage control, rather than just emission reduction, renewable energy, etc.
Having said that, I think the science suggests there is still a need to try to limit the degree of climate change - and this doesn't solely involve costs either. There are financial opportunities with low emission technology and methods.
I think we are crazy to even contemplate curbing emissions until all the data from the East Anglia CRU is openly and tranperently reanalysed, using the raw data of course, not the massages data.
If it then proves we have warming, we need to ascertain
1. Is it due to human activity or not?
2. If it is due to human activity, is it going to be catastrophic?
3. If not, do nothing, if it is then find ways to adapt because we arent going to turn back the clock.
I agree Helen. Let's examine the data, removing the biases and correcting the omissions scurrilously made by the CRU criminals.
The persistence of AGW cultists like Andrew in pursuing their agenda despite the evidence that they have been significantly deceived is astonishing. It certainly shows that you cannot hope to change a religious mindset with bothersome FACTS.
Post a Comment
<< Home