IPCC SR15 Report lacks cost/benefit analysis of ‘Goldilocks thinking’

Posted: October 11, 2018 by tallbloke in alarmism, Big Green, climate, Robber Barons

goldilocksThe UN climate report known as SR15 calls for high carbon taxes from $135 to $5,500/ton while a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Bjorn Lomborg of Oct. 9, 2018 says the costs of proposed CO2 cuts are not worth it, leading the Friends of Science Society to slam the UN report as Goldilocks thinking without any rational cost-benefit analysis or practical plan.

Friends of Science says the WSJ paragraph in which Lomborg describes the economic impact on Europe of cutting emissions 80% by 2050 should be front page news in every newspaper in Europe and North America. Lomborg notes that, with a well designed and coordinated climate policy (i.e. the opposite of what European and North American governments have now), the annual costs will reach U.S. $3.3 trillion, “more than twice what EU governments spend today on health, education, recreation, housing, environment, police and defense combined”.

“The policy will make the EU 24% poorer in 2050.”

Friends of Science Society says much of the global push for “climate action” comes from the ClimateWorks Foundation billionaires who are pushing a global cap and trade system along with their vested interests in renewables. According to a Wikileaks document they have spent some $600 million a year for over a decade, funding influential Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations (ENGOs), as confirmed by a 2018 research paper by Matthew Nisbet published in Wiley Climate Change.

Canadian investigative researcher and author, Donna Laframboise, revealed in her 2011 book “The Delinquent Teenager…” that the IPCC reports were unduly influenced by ENGOs Greenpeace and WWF.

In the Summer 2018 edition of “Issues in Science and Technology,” Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote a compelling review of the IPCC’s push for “Goldilocks” solutions like BioEnergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) which he says have jumped from a notion to a central part of mitigation recommendations, with no critical or cost-benefit analysis.

BECCS is a theory for “negative emissions” using large scale plant growth to absorb CO2; the crops are burned to create energy while the CO2 is captured and buried in the ground.

There are no such large-scale BECCS operations today.

Pielke notes that “full implementation of BECCS ‘at scale’ would require the use of a global land area one and a half times the size of India.”

Pielke also notes the IPCC tends to rely on academic papers using the highest estimates for warming (Representative Concentration Pathway – RCP 8.5) with little reference to the more realistic low end RCP2.6.

The IPCC report pushes wind and solar as solutions to global warming, but two recent studies have found they increase temperatures, one reported by The Harvard Gazette, Oct. 4, 2018. Another paper in DES Tech Transactions on Computer Science and Engineering PCMM conference 2018 shows that “Carbonless Anthropogenic Global Warming” is caused by wind and solar.

The actual global warming trend over the last 40 years is less than half (47%) of the climate models’ simulation on which the UN IPCC report is based, and half of the actual warming is due to natural ocean cycles.

Friends of Science Society says carbon dioxide is not the control knob that can control climate. The IPCC is fraught with conflicts of interest. Official reports filled with Goldilocks thinking but without cost-benefit analysis or practical plans are useless. The alleged climate catastrophe claims are damaging to people’s psyche, especially that of children.

Friends of Science Society is an independent group of earth, atmospheric and solar scientists, engineers, and citizens who are celebrating its 16th year of offering climate science insights. After a thorough review of a broad spectrum of literature on climate change, Friends of Science Society has concluded that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2).

Comments
  1. tallbloke says:

    “And this climate feels just right”

  2. The UK Met office ‘Decadal’ five year forecast is out.
    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
    Using a reference period now of 1850-1900, pre industrial times as advocated in SR15 to enforce the claim that temperatures have risen by 1C during the industrial period.
    Perhaps the new ‘normal’ temperature is a period at the end of the little ice age. Oh how we miss those heady Victorian days… we were much better off then….

  3. oldbrew says:

    the annual costs will reach U.S. $3.3 trillion, “more than twice what EU governments spend today on health, education, recreation, housing, environment, police and defense combined”

    And no guarantee that such ridiculous levels of spending would have any effect at all on the climate, which is claimed to be the point.

    Trump questions credibility of UN ‘global warming’ report
    http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/10/10/trump-questions-credibily-of-un-climate-report-suggests-climate-may-actually-be-fabulous/

  4. nickreality65 says:

    I’ll plow this plowed ground and beat this dead horse yet some more. Maybe somebody will step up and ‘splain scientifically how/why I’ve got it wrong – or not.
    Radiative Green House Effect theory (TFK_bams09):
    1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with atmosphere, RGHE’s only reason to even exist – rubbish. (simple observation & Nikolov & Kramm)
    But how, exactly is that supposed to work?
    2) There is a 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” energy loop consisting of the 0.04% GHG’s that absorbs/”traps”/re-emits per QED simultaneously warming BOTH the atmosphere and the surface. – Good trick, too bad it’s not real, thermodynamic nonsense.
    And where does this magical GHG energy loop first get that energy?
    3) From the 16 C/289 K/396 W/m^2 S-B 1.0 ε ideal theoretical BB radiation upwelling from the surface. – which due to the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the atmospheric molecules is simply not possible.
    No BB upwelling & no GHG energy loop & no 33 C warmer means no RGHE theory & no CO2 warming & no man caused climate change.
    Got science? Bring it!!
    Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78, CO PE 22774
    Experiments in the classical style:
    https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/

  5. oldbrew says:

  6. oldbrew says:

    BBC CENSORSHIP AND THE MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING SCAM
    OCTOBER 8, 2018

    The whole thing is absurd beyond belief. Yet that hasn’t stopped the shameless production of ever more ludicrous inconsistencies, contradictions and lacunae. Today the IPCC has issued yet another prediction of climate apocalypse, giving us 12 years to limit the catastrophe of climate change.

    Really?

    http://www.melaniephillips.com/bbc-censorship-man-made-global-warming-scam/

  7. manicbeancounter says:

    The climate alarmists need to be reminded of some of the basics of their theory. Global warming is allegedly driven by global GHG emissions raising the atmospheric level of various well-mixed greenhouse gases. It follows to cut global emissions to zero, (and that is by 2040 to stop 1.5C of warming according to this report – see SPM Page 6 chart b) any policy initiatives must be global, whether a carbon tax or cap and trade. Such policy is decided (generally) at country level, unless it is the EU. The Paris Climate Agreement excludes developing countries from any obligation to cut their emissions. These developing countries likely account for 80% of the global population, 65% of emissions and around 100% of the net increase in emissions since 1990.
    The other policy implication with meeting this 1.5C target will be that around 80% of the known reserves of fossil fuels will have to be left in the ground.
    For the so-called 1.5C target it is about 600 GtCO2 units. Below are the countries where the major fossil fuel reserves are located, with reserves expressed in potential emissions. Why should countries who rely on oil and gas exports for a large part of their national income (Russia, gulf states, Turkmenistan etc.) support a policy that would wreck their economies in a generation, particularly when the vast majority of their customers are not reducing their emissions?

    The background to this chart is at
    https://manicbeancounter.com/2017/11/22/the-supply-side-of-climate-mitigation-is-toothless/

  8. oldbrew says:

    The other policy implication with meeting this 1.5C target will be that around 80% of the known reserves of fossil fuels will have to be left in the ground.

    Putin & co. must be splitting their sides over that…

    Alexei Miller, Chief Executive of Gazprom said the new deal was “the biggest contract in the entire history of the USSR and Gazprom – over 1 trillion cubic metres of gas will be supplied during a whole contractual period.”
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-27503017

  9. hunter says:

    The fanatics don’t really care about the cost.
    They are obsessed and becoming less rational by the day.
    The only thing that matters to them is to silence critics.

  10. oldbrew says:

    Must Read Lecture: Top Physics Prof Nails the ‘Global Warming’ Myth
    by James Delingpole

    Lindzen, who for 30 years was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is probably the scientist most loathed and feared by the climate alarmist establishment. That’s because he knows the subject rather better than they do and has never been bested in argument.

    He is withering in his contempt for man-made global warming theory, as he demonstrated in some scientific detail at the annual lecture of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London, hosted by its president (Margaret Thatcher’s Chancellor of the Exchequer) Lord Lawson.

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/10/09/prof-richard-lindzen-demolishes-the-climate-change-scare/

  11. […] Björn Lomborg, som specialiserat sig på att göra cost-benefit analyser av klimatpolitiska förslag, är […]

  12. oldbrew says:

    UK steps towards zero-carbon economy

    The UK is taking a tentative step towards a radical “green” future with zero emissions of greenhouse gases.

    The government is formally seeking Committee on Climate Change guidance about how and when to make this leap.

    If it happens it would mark an extraordinary transformation of an economy built on burning fossil fuels.

    The decision was prompted by last week’s UN report warning that CO2 emissions must be stopped completely to avoid dangerous climate disruption.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45856377
    – – –
    The madness goes on.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s