The world signed on to a really bad agreement in Paris and the US mistakenly agreed to part of the charade so that the politicians could feel better.
I am not a Trump supporter, but it was wise for him to reverse the foolish commitment made by Mr. Obama.
https://www.facebook.com/JohnStossel/videos/10155988767501621/
I believe in global warming, Bjorn Lomborg writes, but also in responsible policies to address it. That can get you in trouble.
—–
Copenhagen Consensus research shows that policy makers considering climate change have practical solutions. Cutting fossil-fuel subsidies is a great idea. Each year $550 billion is wasted, mostly by developing nations, on subsidies that mainly help the rich. A dramatic increase in spending on green-energy R&D is needed, as innovation will drive down the price of green energy to the point that it can outcompete fossil fuels. A well-crafted carbon tax would help too.
But our analyses also show that Kyoto-style approaches—poorly designed EU climate policies, or the pledge to hold warming to two degrees Celsius—are costly and ineffective. There are much better ways we could spend money to help the planet.
That conclusion draws the ire of some climate-change activists. When the collaboration between Copenhagen Consensus and the University of Western Australia was announced, the Australian Climate Council, led by paleontologist Tim Flannery, called it “an insult to the scientific community.” Making up facts, the Climate Council warned supporters that I think “we shouldn’t take any steps to mitigate climate change.” This set the tone for the ensuing attacks.
—–
Philanthropists, donors and policy makers must prioritize development goals. What Copenhagen Consensus does is ensure that such parties understand the price tags and potential outcomes for each option.
This work has shown that some aid projects do phenomenally well: For instance, providing contraception to the 215 million women across the globe who lack access to it would reduce maternal mortality and boost growth, producing $120 in social benefits for each dollar spent.
Other policies have lower multipliers. Getting sanitation to the poorest half of the world, for example, would produce only $3 of benefits for each dollar spent. This is worthy, but for a government with a limited development budget, it probably isn’t the first place to spend money.
We should focus resources where they will do the most good—not where they will make us feel the most good. The United Nations is setting 169 global development targets for the next 15 years. These are laudable aims, but together they’re a laundry list: reduce arms trafficking; finance sustainable forest management; achieve universal access to drinking water; halve deaths and injuries from traffic accidents; increase market access for “small-scale artisanal fishers.”
We have all heard the cries of doom.
The oceans are going to rise and destroy mankind! The animals that we are used to in our local environment are all going to die. The tornados will cause mass destruction. Hurricanes will destroy our coastlines.
These have been going on for a LONG TIME now.
One of the biggest fear mongers was Jim Hansen. In 1988, he was looking out on Broadway in New York City and observing the Hudson River. Here is his prediction as remembered by the reporter beside him:
I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”
I took a look at some pictures on Google since I don’t live in NYC. I found some that are approximately the same view as Mr. Hansen. I couldn’t find any comparisons of birds in the area, so I need one of my birding friends to tell me if the birds are significantly different.
Also, I couldn’t tell if the trees were different without before and after images. I could tell that some of those trees look like they are over 50 years old. I don’t see many that are younger than 20, so my guess is that he has that wrong. My gut is that the trees that he was looking at 26 years ago are basically the same trees there now. I would also bet that some of the trees are exactly the same – just 26 years older.
I definitely see roads without water, and it doesn’t look like dikes have been built to keep them dry. So much for the oceans rising and covering the land.
They must have really fancy invisible tape these days because I don’t see any on the windows. A quick check of the weather in NYC leads me to believe that the wind isn’t much harder than 26 years ago.
That is the unfortunate thing about predictions. It is way too easy to find them again and compare them to the date of the prediction. Looks like this prediction is a bust. I wonder if Myth Busters should declare the predictions of 1988 by Jim Hansen BUSTED.
Here is the quote from the article that references this conversation approximately 26 years ago: http://www.salon.com/2001/10/23/weather/
Here are the comparison images that I referenced. I found them by going to Google Maps and it found images at the approximate location that appears to be described in the quote. I do not own the copyright to these images, so if the copyright holder wants me to take them down, I will.
I guess Mr. Hansen is still saying the world is going to end. He says that he isn’t wrong, this time.
In case you don’t recognize the cartoon below, it is Chicken Little.
Interesting post over at “Is It Getting Warmer?“. It is a discussion of scientists and their thirst for getting too involved in politics.
It is an unfortunate turn of events that most big scientific discussions (such as global warming, in this case) turn into political discussions. This could include other things such as abortion, stem cell research, and the teaching of evolution in the classroom. All of these things have a strong scientific discussion which implies that there is a truth somewhere. However, in these cases, the truth is not clear cut and the science is probably not solid. In most of these cases, there is some level of gray in the conversation and much of what is discussed as fact is simply hypothesis.
Scientists should only be using their scientific titles and credentials when they are discussing science. They should discuss this accurately with terms such as “hypothesis” and “theory” and “conjecture” used quite liberally. When they depart from the scientific conversation and into the political arena (which is certainly their right) they should be careful not to be so adamant that they give off an air of certainty that their scientific brethren would not accept.
As I write this, George W. Bush is only a few days away from the end of his 8 year Presidency. Earlier, I had graded Mr. Bush on a variety of major factors but I felt that I left off a huge number of things that he and his administration did or did not do. This list is the result of trying to be more inclusive. Many items on this list are actions by the Mr. Bush and his administration and some of them are inactions.
And of course the one accomplishment that many people feel is the most important:
A couple of comments on the above list.
Did I miss anything?
I am done with this topic for now but I reserve the right to rant more on it someday.
Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Email link in the upper right corner Subscribe section, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.
I am a big fan of the music of Sheryl Crow. I have all of her CDs and have bought each one (no, I didn’t “borrow” someone else’s MP3 files). I have enjoyed her music over the years but, to be honest, her first CD was probably her best and she could be accused of coasting since then – a couple good songs per CD with so-so songs after that.
I have listened to Ms. Crow’s latest CD several times. It is titled “Detours”. It is an apt title since it is a detour from her usual high quality work! I feel like the Democratic Party, Al Gore, and Laurie David have been injected into my brain via my ears! To think that I spent $15 for a CD of political propaganda.
I have no problem with the occasional activism song. I actually applaud this even when I don’t particularly agree with the message. For instance, Matchbox Twenty’s recent video “How Far We’ve Come” (see the bottom of this post to watch the video) is absolutely a political statement and it is excellent (I am not sure that the ending of showing Mr. Gore, Ms. Clinton, and Mr. Obama is a statement to the positive after watching the fall of the Berlin Wall but maybe that is their point).
Thankfully, Ms. Crow has put the lyrics to her songs in the CD package. I appreciate that gesture and she has regularly done this for her listeners. However, the words that she is portraying are over the top. Does she really know for a fact that the President was lying to get into a war? When I want to listen to someone exaggerate the truth, I will watch Al Gore’s movie since the British courts have already called that a political document.
Sheryl (and other artists) should limit her political statements to one or two well done messages and then spend the rest of the CD entertaining me. That is what I am paying her to do.
SHERYL – I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR POLITICS! I WANT YOU TO ENTERTAIN ME, NOT LECTURE ME ON YOUR OPINIONS!
I am done with this topic for now but I reserve the right to rant more on it someday.
Did you know that you can have these articles emailed to you? Click on the Email link in the upper right corner Subscribe section, fill out the details, and you are set. No one will see your email address and you won’t get more spam by doing this.
Technorati Tags: global+warming,sheryl+crow,politics
