Climate Alarmism In One Statement: "Limited Evidence, High Agreement"
The draft version of the report's Summary For Policymakers made the startling admission that the economic damage caused by "climate change" would be between 0.2 and 2 percent of global GDP - significantly less than the doomsday predictions made in the 2006 Stern report (which estimated the damage at between 5 and 20 percent of global GDP).
But this reduced estimate did not suit the alarmist narrative of several of the government delegations at the recent IPCC talks in Yokahama, Japan. Among them was the British one, comprising several members of the deep green Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), which insisted on doctoring this section of the Summary For Policymakers in order to exaggerate the potential for more serious economic damage.
"Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range (limited evidence, high agreement)"
There was no evidence whatsoever in the body of the report to justify this statement.
I find it fascinating that there can be "high agreement" to a statement for which there is limited or no evidence. Fortunately these are all self-proclaimed defenders of science or I might think this was purely a political statement.
Note that the most recent IPCC reports and new published studies on climate sensitivity tend to say that 1) warming in the next century will be 1-2C, not the much higher numbers previously forecast; 2) That warming will not be particularly expensive to manage and mitigate and 3) we are increasingly less sure that warming is causing all sorts of negative knock-on effects like more hurricanes. In other words, opinion is shifting to where science-based skeptics have been all along (since 2007 in my case). No surprise or shame here. What is shameful though is that as evidence points more and more to the lukewarmer skeptic position, we are still called evil heretical deniers that should be locked in jail. Like telling Galileo, "you were right about that whole heliocentric thing but we still think you are evil for suggesting it."
tmitsss:
someone call the OED we have a new definition of bias "limited evidence, high agreement
April 1, 2014, 11:05 amrandian:
I doubt 1-degree C would be *measurably* expensive to mitigate, because quite frankly it doesn't require mitigation.
April 1, 2014, 12:20 pmW. C. Taqiyya:
They change the name of their fantasy to fit the latest weather reports and skewed charts. They have not proven anything. What's to argue? The wizards in biblical times at least had some astrological understanding so they could have fun with eclipsis and such. These global apocalypse guys are nothing but hot air.
April 1, 2014, 1:11 pmMole1:
"I find it fascinating that there can be "high agreement" to a statement for which there is limited or no evidence."
This is straightforward content-free mathematical statement, a masterful appeasement of the mathematically illiterate. They assumed some asymmetric distribution since "damage" can't be less than 0. So, by definition there is a long tail on the high side of the range, so the actual result is more likely to be on the high side than the low side.
April 1, 2014, 2:40 pmmesaeconoguy:
Still more idiotic are the warmist “solutions” to this non-problem, which – unlike the problem itself – most definitely will cost far more than estimated, and cause much, much worse economic damage than predicted.
Because any such action would require mass government action, this is a tautology.
April 1, 2014, 3:21 pmJW:
"Hey guys, guess what, the data shows that the warming will be much less than what we thought. This is fantastic! This is great news!"
BURN THE HERETIC!
April 1, 2014, 5:16 pmGil G:
So AGW is will be kinda crumby with perfectly acceptable losses? A decent war in the 21st century will cause more economic danger and loss in life? Phew, I thought there was going to be a problem for a while there.
April 1, 2014, 8:06 pmMaximum Liberty:
Warren --
This conclusion is almost trivially true. There are three possibilities:
1. Economic damage (below the predicted range) in the 0.0 - 0.2 % range.
2. Economic damage (in the predicted range) in the 0.2 - 2.0 % range.
3. Economic damage (above the predicted range) in the 2.0 - 100.0% range.
The statement only compares ranges 1 and 3. So, given all the things we don't know about how the climate works, are the odds of range 1 or range 3 higher? Well, range 1 is right up against the zero bound, while range 3 has a long way to go before it hits its bound of 100%. So, if I am betting on one or the other without knowing anything, I'll put my money on range 3.
And now I see that Mole1 made the same point. Ah, well, I'm posting anyway.
The technical accuracy of the statement says nothing, of course, about the very misleading impression it gives to the casual reader that range 3 is likelier than range 2.
Max
April 2, 2014, 1:04 pmskhpcola:
I have to admit, you do passive-aggressive assclownery with expert finesse. Content-free assclownery, but assclownery nonetheless.
April 2, 2014, 1:23 pmskhpcola:
All of that makes sense only if you accept and believe the initial premise that the climate hysterics are telling the truth about...anything, really. I, and many others, reject the premise and see no need to enable demonstrated liars and thieves.
April 2, 2014, 1:27 pmEmil:
actually there is no 0 bound given that there is an infinite possibility for economic benefits.
April 6, 2014, 1:46 am