Since Jurek seems to have dire problems in recognising the differences between scientifically demonstrated fact, editorially altered media reports and his own internal monologue I feel it necessary to point a few things out. He also has no idea what the difference between positive and normative statements are.
On his initial quote:
I think so-called climate activists deriberately misdirect the debate to get dotations to ineffective climate subsidies under "moral panic" of supposedly catastrophic change.
Changing climate does mean also 1) that warmer climate will be positive for many regions
This is a mixture of fallacy and normative. In what sense will it be better? For whom? Can you please cite some scientific assessments of this?
2) all calculations show that adaptation to new climate is MUCH cheaper than prevention
Again this is a fallacy and you have absolutely no evidence to back it up. Here is a summary of some facts regarding the cost of climate change. Every one of the reviews cited suggests prevention is economically better than trying to ‘adapt’ to the consequences.
Economic Costs
Several attempts have been made to quantify the potential economic costs of climate change. Estimates have ranged from 1 – 3% GNP (Fankhauser, 1994) to 0.5 - 2% GDP (Nordhaus and Boyer, 2001-+) to 5 - 20% GDP (Stern, 2006). Economic costs articulate the monetary cost over specific time periods (the previous values are expressed as a proportion of global GDP/ GNP growth). But it is important to consider that these valuations are of “global GDP each year, now and forever”. The monetary amounts are therefore greater than a year of current global GDP growth within 150 years or so, even if the lowest predicted costs are selected. Various criticism have been levelled at the Stern report in particular, notably by economist William Hordhaus for taking a prescriptive approach in it’s choice of discount rate (Hulme, 2009; 4), in essence the criticism is that the report becomes overly subjective by deviating from consensus. Other commentaries have also pointed out that by using low or declining discount rates, the Stern Review would have today’s poorer generations subsidise tomorrow’s much wealthier generations to make them even richer (Goklany, 2006)
It is however difficult for economics to value to cost of permanent losses which will occur in terms of eco-system services and biodiversity since these services would otherwise be provided long into the future and are irreplaceable (Myers, in Reaka-Kudla et al. 1996; Neumayer, 2007) . Economic calculations for biodiversity loss are there based upon Bayesian estimates of the value of impact upon Biodiversity. However, the complexity of this issue means it is best discussed in its own right.
3) current climate policies are not cost-effective, in fact are very wasteful.
Political statements are by their nature normative. The effectiveness of current policy is only bad if more effective policies can be demonstrated.
Europe 1) cannot prevent warming climate anyway, because it accounts for a fraction of worldwide emissions
Well it’s about 6bn tonnes to 11bn tonnes so actually the EU with a comparatively tiny population still produces half as much greenhouse emissions as China and India combined (5.3 vs 9 for the most recently assessed figures in 2005). But I’m sure you wouldn’t let things like facts stand in the way of your ascertains.
And actually the European model has demonstrated that emissions trading can be used to at least prevent dramatic increases in emissions. US emissions have increased at a much faster rate than in the EU.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions
2) adapting/mitigating warmer climate is much cheaper than basically killing the economy to prevent the change
As John pointed out this is contingent upon numerous highly unpredictable factors. The exact effects of warming the rate of technological progress and what kind of measures are used for prevention or adaptation. In any case not one single serious economist has ever suggested adaptation is likely to be cheaper. See economic costs above.
3) human population will benefit from warmer climate - changing from cold boreal to balmer Meditrerranean climate
Show me a single climate model that demonstrates this. Boreal zones are generally sparsely populated. Most of the European and world population lives in temperate or Mediterranean climates. These areas are projected to have increasing difficulty with crop growth etc.
4) has wildlife already adapted to fast change during the passing of Ice Ages. As [sic] evidenced by southern birds, butterflies etc spreading north. Including John's Dropwing, all the cool white egrets colonizing Europe etc.
I have already demonstrated literally hundreds of examples proving this is an utter fallacy. Sure adaptation will occur, but we already know it’s not occurring fast enough to prevent massive biodiversity loss and species extinctions. So one more time Jurek, just for you…
Biodiversity Loss
Climate change is inextricably linked to biodiversity loss. Even optimistic climate scenarios (such as the 2OC warming in the next 100 years) have been unequivocally demonstrated to precipitate future losses of ~18% (11% - 37%) of all biodiversity (Thomas et al, 2004). The highest (though still plausible) projections of warming predict collapses of major biomes; which would therefore hugely inflate numbers of extinction events (Malcolm and Markham, 2002)
Projected extinction models are also likely to be highly conservative since they account only for species loss through ‘climatic niche’ loss rather than possible interactions between species. Since invasive species are the currently regarded as the second largest driver of extinction (IUCN, 2009), it seems likely that the new interactions between species displaced by climate change will have cascades of unexpected consequences (Mooney, 2001). Additionally other continuing factors such as land-use change increase the susceptibility of species to climate change through effects such as range-reduction, fragmentation and changing fire-regimes (Brook, 2008).
Partly as a result of climate change global biodiversity is more threatened now than at any other time in human history, with a consensus in the scientific community that we are now entering a ‘sixth great extinction event’ (Leakey and Lewin, 1996). Many authors have emphasised the economic (e.g. Costanza et al, 1997) and ethical (e.g. Lockwood, 1999; Norton & Ulanowicz 1992) reasons these extinctions should be prevented. We may even destroy species or genes which are potential resources we do not even know exist.
I think so-called climate activists deriberately misdirect the debate to get dotations to ineffective climate subsidies under "moral panic" of supposedly catastrophic change.
Activists may do this, but all I have done so far is quote proven scientific literature against your asinine ascertains. You can use Goole Scholar to search abstracts yourself if you think there is some kind of editorial bias in the papers I’m presenting. I challenge you to present peer-review literature which demonstrates your points…
Yes, I also heard that, but this idea seems to be abandoned. As well as ideas about 6m sea level rise, Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 etc etc.
Please cite the scientific papers you ‘heard’ this from? Tabloid newspapers tend not be a good source of information on any subject. Your knowledge of climate change seems to be entirely based on sensationalist media reports.
However, eg. percentage of European pollution against China and India (which made sure it will not follow climate policies) remains firm fact.
See my rebuttal to 1) above.
Simon, you are simply ridiculous by scaring people that every bird shifting range northwards in warming climate will go extinct.
I didn’t say that at all. I said the endpoint of decline is extinction, which was to demonstrate that in presenting papers showing decline of birds there is also therefore a possibility of extinction. In any case I have presented you with demonstrated population level extinctions in Europe and you now seem to be entirely silent on the point which you were so ardently argue earlier.
I understand that scientists try to get research grants by studing "global warming with everything" but this is plain wrong.
You understand nothing. I’m sure everyone on this forum will support me in saying this is nauseating idiocy of the highest order. Next you’ll be suggesting scientists engineered global warming and cancer just so they’d have something to solve.
The broader subjects of investigation for research grants is determined before their allocation to specific topics anyway so the majority of global warming research money would have been allocated before anyone applied for the grants.
If you think science is some kind of racket I would point you in the direction of the salary figures for research scientists who have spend 7+ years before their first paid job vs the salary of a lawyer or business administrator with the same amount of experience. Science is a vocation. When did you last hear of corrupt scientists?
If you don’t like what science has to say or the results it produces I would advise you not to live with them. No modern medicine, no computer, no communications, no cheap fabrics, no cheap food, nothing. I would be very interested to know what you do for a living that’s so comparatively noble.
I thought that you are just rude, now I see you have problems with understanding and reasoning.
Ecological impact is a meaningless catchphrase. Ecology is always changing and everything, anytime, had, has and will have ecological impact. Studying it is interesting activity, but this is NOT what society is concerned about.
I’m can only guess that you don’t know what ecology is since this is basically the equivalent of “What have the Roman’s ever done for us?”
Okay let’s start with one brief example. Ecology is the scientific study of the relations that living organisms have with respect to each other and their natural environment. Like for example the competitive interaction between Staphylococcus and Penicillium notatum, perhaps the greatest medical discovery of the 20th Century.
To dupe people into paying billions of pounds and euro in the middle of economic crisis, you should demonstrate more. That the impact is only negative and of magnitude really justifying billions of pounds spent. And - most importantly - the money will be spend the best way possible. The facts speak opposite.
Here is an example of the recent, realistic not alarmist approach:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16730834
"Climate change this century poses
both risks and opportunities, according to the first comprehensive government assessment of its type."
"Hotter summers leading to between 580-5900 deaths above the average per year by the 2050s." but:
"Milder winters leading to 3,900-24,000 fewer premature deaths by the 2050s, significantly more than those forecast to die as a result of hot weather." I would say 4-6 times more.
So you can stop picking only scary stories and throwing at people.
The fewer premature deaths you refer to will be due for the most part to reduction in the infection rate of the influenza virus. However, extrapolating a reduction in the spread of influenza should logically mean we extrapolate trends in all potential infectious disease since they will all be altered in some way. Unfortunately that would require ‘pointless ecological research’ by scientists. And here is a brief synopsis on the actual effects on global health.
Human Life and Health
The exact impacts upon human health and life are hugely uncertain but additional millions of people are predicted to be put at risk from water shortage, malaria, hunger and coastal flooding (Parry et al., 2002) The human-induced warming that the world is now experiencing is already causing 150,000 deaths and 5 million incidents of disease each year from additional malaria and diarrhea(Patz, 2005). Further anticipated problems include the potential destabilisation of international order by environmental refugees and emergence of new conflicts (Homer-Dixon, 1991; Barnett, 2007) and the depopulation of sovereign atoll countries (Barnett and Adger, 2003).
Look Polyanna, you have taken into account one soundbite of one report which refers to just the UK in isolation. Undoubtedly there will be marginal temporary benefits in some areas. No one is denying it. However, we live in a global world and the social, economic and geopolitical effects will affect Britain. Sure you don’t care about global warming cause it’ll be nice weather in Holland and who gives a damn about the millions dying from droughts in the third world? But when those droughts and famines cause widespread migrations and civil unrest and the prices of copper and oil skyrockets and trip an even bigger global recession, then what? Don’t be so naïve as to think you can isolate yourself from the effects of complete global change.
If you would like to contest any of the arguments above please at least cite some real literature beyond your own baseless tabloid ascertains.
References cited can be found at the end of these documents…
http://tinyurl.com/7z25zax
http://tinyurl.com/82eba2d