Post by garfield on Feb 6, 2013 12:36:24 GMT 10
Professor G. Cornelis van Kooten holds a chair in Environmental Studies and Climate at Canada’s University of Victoria:
I was a reluctant contributing author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report – reluctant because, after having been a reviewer of the third report, putting in quite a bit of time and then totally ignored, I viewed the process as nothing more than a sham…
I have worked on climate problems related to forestry, both in terms of adaptation and mitigation… However, I first looked at the broader problem of climate change when, about five years ago, I was asked to teach climate economics in a new Climate Studies minor in the Faculty of Social Sciences at my university… I have now encountered a significant number of scientists and others who have been personally attacked and even threatened with violence for their contrary views on climate change, and even more scientists who have contrary views but keep such views to themselves. Indeed, I would even dare to say that there are likely as many on my own university campus who are skeptical about the human origins of supposed global warming as there are those who support the so-called consensus – and my university is noted for its climate scientists and pro-anthropogenic origins of global warming....
So here is what I found...
[The] climate models have never been validated and are simply unreliable.... To add insult to injury, the climate models were also used to make claims about the increasing intensity of storms, rainfall events, etc., when all the empirical evidence indicates that storm events have been on the decline…
After reading a large literature by astrophysicists, I am more convinced that changes in solar activities (whether sunspots, various types of cycles, etc.) are a better explanation of changing temperatures and possible global warming than CO2. ..
The highest temperature projections are based on the poorest people in the world increasing their incomes from $246 (measured in real 1990 USD) to $49,000 per year by the end of the century; the lowest expected rise in the per capita income of the poorest people will see them earning $3,850 (again real 1990 US $) annually, or some 15 times more than now… There are huge benefits to health and every other measure one cares to choose when one becomes rich. These more than outweigh any damage from climate change… Rising CO2 emissions are, for the most part, a side effect of alleviating global poverty. To mitigate climate change one needs to force the vast majority of humankind to continue living in abject poverty.
Preventing climate change does not help the poor, it dooms them! Poverty simply kills more people than climate…
In my view, the only real threat to humanity comes from sea level rise, and it is miniscule. The threats to polar bears, ecosystems, agriculture, etc., are vastly overstated and, in many cases, non-existent. I have yet to see convincing evidence that the threats are going to be catastrophic. From my perspective, I would welcome 5 to 8 degrees of warming, or even more. Warm weather is much better for one’s health than cold weather ...
Economists have warned and continue to warn against the use of emissions trading. They worry about additonality, leakages, transaction costs, corruption, etc., that are associated with emissions trading… But, perhaps, massive subsidies to support wind and solar developments on the basis of job creation might be a more insane policy.
I was a reluctant contributing author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report – reluctant because, after having been a reviewer of the third report, putting in quite a bit of time and then totally ignored, I viewed the process as nothing more than a sham…
I have worked on climate problems related to forestry, both in terms of adaptation and mitigation… However, I first looked at the broader problem of climate change when, about five years ago, I was asked to teach climate economics in a new Climate Studies minor in the Faculty of Social Sciences at my university… I have now encountered a significant number of scientists and others who have been personally attacked and even threatened with violence for their contrary views on climate change, and even more scientists who have contrary views but keep such views to themselves. Indeed, I would even dare to say that there are likely as many on my own university campus who are skeptical about the human origins of supposed global warming as there are those who support the so-called consensus – and my university is noted for its climate scientists and pro-anthropogenic origins of global warming....
So here is what I found...
[The] climate models have never been validated and are simply unreliable.... To add insult to injury, the climate models were also used to make claims about the increasing intensity of storms, rainfall events, etc., when all the empirical evidence indicates that storm events have been on the decline…
After reading a large literature by astrophysicists, I am more convinced that changes in solar activities (whether sunspots, various types of cycles, etc.) are a better explanation of changing temperatures and possible global warming than CO2. ..
The highest temperature projections are based on the poorest people in the world increasing their incomes from $246 (measured in real 1990 USD) to $49,000 per year by the end of the century; the lowest expected rise in the per capita income of the poorest people will see them earning $3,850 (again real 1990 US $) annually, or some 15 times more than now… There are huge benefits to health and every other measure one cares to choose when one becomes rich. These more than outweigh any damage from climate change… Rising CO2 emissions are, for the most part, a side effect of alleviating global poverty. To mitigate climate change one needs to force the vast majority of humankind to continue living in abject poverty.
Preventing climate change does not help the poor, it dooms them! Poverty simply kills more people than climate…
In my view, the only real threat to humanity comes from sea level rise, and it is miniscule. The threats to polar bears, ecosystems, agriculture, etc., are vastly overstated and, in many cases, non-existent. I have yet to see convincing evidence that the threats are going to be catastrophic. From my perspective, I would welcome 5 to 8 degrees of warming, or even more. Warm weather is much better for one’s health than cold weather ...
Economists have warned and continue to warn against the use of emissions trading. They worry about additonality, leakages, transaction costs, corruption, etc., that are associated with emissions trading… But, perhaps, massive subsidies to support wind and solar developments on the basis of job creation might be a more insane policy.
