Bush said something about climate change. Sounds like the usual nothing to me: My proposal is this: By the end of next year America and other nations will set a long-term global goal for making sure we don’t have to do anything in the near future. Sorry, that should read …for reducing greenhouse gases. Predictably enough, Blur hailed this as a Great Leap Forwards whilst Merkel was sensibly more cautious.
[Update: Nature has an editorial entitled “No more hot air”: The leaders meeting at this year’s G8 summit must grasp the opportunity to assert themselves and commit to real action on climate change… The Bush administration, however, seems once again to be working to foil any meaningful progress by the G8 on climate issues. Merkel should learn lessons from what happened to UK prime minister Tony Blair when he sought to pursue the same agenda at the G8 at Gleneagles, Scotland, two years ago: by accommodating US resistance and talking compromise, he achieved precisely nothing.
James Annan has been McIntyred and just for once I find the IPCC position indefensible.
A while back I noted a paper in CPD that questionned the “there is an 800 year lag of CO2 at deglaciations” meme which has become such a favourite of the septics recently (most people go with the “yes its true but irrelevant”, but the maybe its not true is also possible). When I noted the paper before it was just submitted.
Now its had two reviews and an editor comment by the sagacious Eric Wolff, and to my eye it seems to have survived largely unscathed. Indeed the reviewers call for it to consider the consequences rather more, so there maybe interesting times ahead for the idea.
Following JFs example, I’ve created a rather more useful comparison: see . Proof that weasels are more popular than stoats. Isn’t technology wonderful?
Last night to the Beer festival to… drink beer. And to admire the beer mats, since Miriams company (as in, the one she works for, not the one she owns, sadly) is one of the sponsors. Don’t forget to click through to their wonderful website and buy some of their wonderful products. Although you can’t, really, unless you’re a large corporation. But you can buy a Tosh or Samsung product with their stuff inside. 🙂
Kevin Vrames at Climate feedback has a nice post on a perverse-incentive problem with one part of the CDM. Which is one small part of the reason I don’t buy any offsetting at the moment.
The IEA are the Institute for Economic Affairs. The quote on their mainpage shows what they think of themselves The price of economic freedom is eternal vigilance, and as long as the IEA is around, we may be sure that the forces of regulation and state control will have a formidable obstacle in their path. Long may it flourish.
Almost inevitably, this kind of attitude translates into skepticism on global warming. The illogical argument is, roughly, “we’re for economic freedom and low taxes and against government interference. GW, if real, will probably require state intervention to fix it. Therefore, GW must not be real”. Its the same syllogism as David Bellamys position: “GW, if real, might require wind turbines to reduce emissions. I hate wind turbines. Therefore…”. Not that this attitude is unique to the Dark Side. Greenies are fond of “I’d like to reduce cars, waste, env destruction and noise and…; GW, if real, would make reducing these things more likely; therefore…”.
But come, what do they have to say for themselves about GW? Or, what does Russell Lewis have to say on their behalf?
Continue reading “Talkin’ Tosh with the IEA”