A while ago, I was sauntering along one of our local beaches with a physicist. There are three outstanding things about this guy, he is very clever, very tall, and an excellent walker with whom I’ve spent many days in the mountains, winter and summer, and in all kinds of conditions.
We were talking about climate change and he told me that he had recently read a book by Professor David McKay on the subject of alternative energy generation which, not surprisingly, had done nothing to convince him that there might be a few problems with the orthodox view of AGW. His attitude was that, as a physicist, reading a book by another physicist, he was inclined to accept what this told him rather than any of the reservations expressed by sceptics who were not physicists. To a certain extent I could see his point and was happy to treat it with respect. But what happened next did surprise me.
As he trotted out the well-tried and tested mantras of warmist dogma, I offered alternative views that raised doubts. Finally he turned to me and said, “Look, there seems to be a risk, and what I think is that if you go out for a walk and you get to the edge of a pond that might have alligators in it, then you walk round the edge of it rather than go through the middle”. He wasn’t too happy when I asked if he often got his feet wet by walking through ponds, whether there were likely to be alligators in them or not.
This supposed ‘killer argument’ involving alligators had sprung up on the net a few weeks earlier and spread rapidly. I hadn’t expected to hear it used by someone whose views are usually well informed and carefully expressed.
Although well-chosen analogies can be very helpful when trying to explain something that is complex, they seldom seem to work well in argument. It is not surprising that ‘Faulty Analogy’ has its own place in the long list of rhetorical fallacies loved by students of rhetoric and logic. Here is a definition:
This fallacy consists in assuming that because two things are alike in one or more respects, they necessarily are alike in some more important respects, while failing to recognise the insignificance of their similarities and/or the significance of their dissimilarities.
The ‘alligators in the pond’ analogy had a pretty short life – quite rightly because it was ludicrous – but warmists still seem to think that this kind of persuasion will gain converts. Perhaps it has something to do with their oft-repeated belief that the only reason that climate scepticism is growing among the public is because advocates of global warming are not explaining things properly.
Last Monday evening, a BBC Panorama report about the climate debate used an analogy that has proved far more durable than ‘alligators in the pond’, in spite of it being equally fallacious. Professor Bob Watson, one time IPCC chairman and all-round cheerleader for climate Armageddon, helped wind up the programme on a suitably evangelical note by saying:
What risks are we willing to take? The average homeowner probably has fire insurance. They don’t expect a fire in their home [but] they’re still willing to take out fire insurance because they don’t want the risk, and there’s probably a much better chance of us seeing the middle to the upper end of that temperature projection [from the IPCC] than of a single person saying they’ll have a fire in their home tomorrow morning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00swp0k/Panorama_Whats_Up_With_the_Weather/
The expression on his face while he said this was that of a man who was generously sharing a great and irrefutable truth with the audience.
Next morning I was not surprised to find that there were references to this parable of the burning house on another thread at this blog. I therefor put up the following comment:
The fire insurance analogy, although it sounds very plausible, is in fact a very poor one.
Fire premiums are determined by actuarial analysis based on abundant historical evidence of the extent of the risk, and also cost determined by competition between insurers. This is not the case with the threat of AGW where politicians have granted the IPCC a virtual monopoly of ‘actuarial analysis’ and the same politicians are in a position to determine the supposed ‘premium’ on the basis of whichever economists they choose to listen to; a process that is also included in the IPCC’s remit. Competition, either between ‘actuaries’ or ‘insurers’, plays no part in this process.
We simply do not know the extent of the risk or the likely cost of indemnity. No reputable insurer would offer a policy on this basis and the analogy has no application to the climate debate other than to demonstrate the weakness of the arguments by which it is now being sustained.
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=274&cp=6#comment-63328
This unleashed a barrage of questions from Harmless Sky’s star warmist contributor: would I say what degree of risk I think is posed by AGW? This was strange, because the last sentence of my comment makes it clear that I don’t think that there is an answer to that question. The inquiries about my opinion culminated in the following comment:
Your answer is nothing at all, isn’t it? You think the risk is zero (or the chances of the IPCC being essentially correct in their estimation.) Am I being unfair in suggesting that? I don’t think so.
If you don’t think it is zero, maybe you could tick one of the following:a) Less than 5% b) between 5% and 20% c) between 20% and 50%. d) between 50% and 90% e) greater than 90%
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=274&cp=6#comment-63530
Now there’s something rather obvious missing from that range of options, and its omission highlights one of the great divides in the climate debate. Sceptics are often willing enough to admit that they ‘don’t know’. For warmists such an admission seems to be an impossibility, and one that is becoming increasingly damaging to their cause.
Here is what John Christy had to say when he recently appeared before the review panel that is supposedly investigating the practices of the IPCC:
A fundamental problem with the entire issue here is that climate science is not a classic, experimental science. As an emerging science of a complex, chaotic climate system, it is plagued by uncertainty and ambiguity in both observations and theory. Lacking classic, laboratory results, it easily becomes hostage to opinion, groupthink, arguments-from-authority, overstatement of confidence, and even Hollywood movies.
When climate scientists are placed in the limelight because this issue can generate compelling disaster scenarios, we simply don’t want to say, “We just don’t know.”
And
In February of this year, Nature magazine asked me for a brief discussion about the IPCC and a way forward. My main concern there was to define a process that would let the world know that our ignorance of much of the climate system is simply enormous and we have much to do. Mother Nature has a tremendous number of degrees of freedom up her sleeves, many of which we don’t even know about or account for.http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/christyjr_iac_100615.pdf
Another point that I raised in my comment about the fire insurance analogy was that it exhibited weak thinking on the part of warmists. A kind of desperation seems to be driving them to ever-greater extremes in the implausible rhetoric and propaganda that they are prepared to employ. There has been a superb example this week.
The American National Academy of Sciences has published a paper in its journal that purports to analyse the ‘distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers’ in the climate debate. Evidently the criterion used is the publication records of the dissenters: they don’t figure nearly so prominently in the peer reviewed literature as those who cleave to the orthodoxy and, in the eyes of the authors, this proves that they are not very good scientists.
Of course silly bits of research do get published from time to time, but you don’t expect them to turn up in one of the world’s leading science journals, or to be co-authored by someone of the stature of Stephen Schneider, who has been a leading figures in climate science for over thirty years. But what is more remarkable is that neither PNAS nor Schneider seem to have anticipated the extent to which this exercise would backfire. There were immediate accusations of creating a blacklist of researchers exhibiting politically unacceptable tendencies, with all the antipathy that is likely to engender, but worse, it has drawn renewed attention to the growing controversy over the way in which peer review is applied and the problems that sceptical researchers face over funding. Far from discrediting those who appear on the list, which was the obvious object of the exercise, it has made martyrs of them, and once again spotlighted the very worrying culture within the climate science community that Climategate first laid bare.
How could Schneider and the editors at PNAS be so blind to the pitfall of publishing a crass political attack on what they clearly see as their adversaries under the guise of scientific research? They are not thinking straight any more than Watson was when he trotted out a facile and obviously fallacious analogy at the end of the Panorama programme. Such actions are the cause of scepticism, not a remedy for it.
I do not know what risk, if any, anthropogenic climate change poses. What worries me is that, so long as the task of finding out is left in the hands of the IPCC – an organisation that is obsessed with persuading the world that it knows all the answers while downplaying uncertainties – we are very unlikely to find out.
_____________________________
H/T to tempterrain who, unwittingly, provided the idea for this post.
Max (and PeterM):
There is not the remotest possibility that “A cap and trade system … [will be] installed globally … [and a] “carbon cake” divided up among all nations …” etc. The developing and fossil-fuel based economies (supported maybe by the USA) would ensure it was strangled at birth. Thus the next complete impossibility – policing such a system – would not even arise.
See my next post.
PeterM: thanks for answering (#39) my (originally your) question.
But current UK policy already goes far beyond the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. We have passed legislation (the Climate Change Act 2008) obliging us to reduce emissions radically between now and 2050: in all, an 80% reduction is mandated. It will be vastly and absurdly expensive: every year between now and 2050 it will cost more than £20 billion – arguably a lot more. All this will put a massive burden on our already seriously damaged economy. No other country in the world has burdened itself in this way – nor does any seem remotely likely to do so.
Moreover, your post makes it clear you are still living in dreamland. Your idea that “all countries worldwide” will “probably” one day sign up to an emissions trading scheme is utter fantasy. Let’s consider the facts:
1. The overriding one is that total emissions by the developed (or industrialised) world which, in 1970, were 50% of the global total were, by 2007, are only a third: see this graph. Since then, the gap has widened even further.
Look carefully at that graph. One thing stands out: even if the entire industrialised world were to cut its emissions back to 1990 levels (exceptionally unlikely anyway – think of current US and EU disarray), it would not make any practical difference at all.
2. Is there any likelihood that this clear trend will change? The answer is plainly No. This is amply demonstrated by the links I’ve already provided for you: here (‘Carbon emissions necessary for India’), here (China To Build 20 Large Coal Mines By 2015), here (World Bank backs loan for South Africa power station) and here (G20 summit drops clean-energy pledge). And don’t forget the failure at Copenhagen. All this goes far, far beyond your “potential problems with new coal fired powered stations being built in many parts of the World”.
No, the developing economies plainly have no intention of restricting their GHG emissions. Wake up to the real world, Peter: you may not like it, but it’s not going to happen.
3. In addition to all that, do you believe there’s the remotest chance that fossil-fuel rich nations (Iran, Venezuela, Russia, the Arab states, etc.) are interested in making reductions? Only if you believe in the tooth fairy.
No, that gap’s going to continue to get wider … and wider. And there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
So that’s the real dilemma facing the UK minister responsible for “tackling climate change”. Is there any point at all in unilateral reduction? Perhaps you think the savages will follow when the white man shows the way: yes sir (massa, bwana, sahib, boss – take your pick), whatever you say, sir? Ridiculous, embarrassing post imperial arrogance.
The only sensible answer is to forget unilateral reduction and concentrate exclusively on strengthening our economy so that we’re well placed to adapt to whatever change the climate (or other event) may bring.
If you don’t agree, explain why. Thanks.
Robin,
What you are saying is that even if the worst predictions of climate scientists do indeed turn out to be accurate there isn’t a damn thing anyone can do about it. So let’s pretend it isn’t going to happen.
I’m not sure how the UK, even with a strong economy, could possibly survive if the rest of the world was in chaos.
You may be right. The problem may be beyond any solution, especially if it is left unaddressed for too long. But it seems somewhat defeatist to not at least give it our best shot first.
Max,
The revenue from ‘Cap and trade’ or ‘carbon tax’ could be shared out as a sort of Green dividend to everyone. Everyone could get a payment at the end of the year.
Or, it could be used to offset income tax leading to reduced rates.
Or, it could be used to develop new low CO2 energy technology.
Or, maybe a mixture of all these things. Its all negotiable at this stage. You’ve got to be ‘in it to win it’, so to speak, so why not try to influence it in your preferred direction?
PeterM
You opined to Robin:
You’ve got it all a bit backward here, Peter.
The world has far too long “pretended that it is going to happen” (although there were never any empirical data supporting this premise).
Now it is becoming clear that it was all based on agenda-based bad science, GIGO computer model simulations and exaggerations.
There are many well placed individuals and corporations who had hoped to benefit financially or politically from this global wave of anxiety, and these are still desperately trying to keep the hysteria alive despite an increasing public awareness of what is really going on.
The leaders of impoverished nations were hoping to get a “guilt handout” from the industrially developed world, so they also gave lip support the AGW craze.
Prior to all the recent revelations, the IPCC, a political organization whose very existence depends on the premise of dangerous AGW, had bamboozled the world into believing that it was conducting serious, impartial climate science rather than simply selling a political agenda backed by “science”.
The real costs of proposed “mitigation steps” have slowly become apparent and those nations, who would be the biggest losers, are finally saying “NO”, while some “pie in the sky” politicians in the developed world are still giving the mitigation proposals lukewarm lip service but backing off from any painful commitments.
The point of it all, Peter, is that the whole AGW charade has unraveled as it has become clear to one and all that “the worst predictions of climate scientists” (as you have put it) are rubbish.
We no longer need to “pretend that they are going to happen”.
So there really isn’t “a damn thing” anyone needs “to do about out it”.
It’s time to move on to real problems and issues.
Max
PeterM (54)
There is no reason to create a gigantic bureaucratic “cap and trade” scheme that will make the hedge fund operators and money shufflers even richer than they already are at public expense.
All the good talk about rebates, year-end revenue sharing, income tax offsets or use to subsidize currently non-viable “non-CO2 based” energy sources or carbon sequestration technology, etc. misses the main point.
The money has got to come from somewhere.
And that “somewhere” is the average inhabitant of the industrialized world, whose net disposable income and standard of living will thereby be reduced.
All the rest is nice-sounding PR and fancy “eyewash”.
Max
PeterM
Back to your 54
My “preferred direction” is not setting up this costly bureaucratic tax scheme in the first place (as you might have deduced from my 56), as you cannot explain to me how it will be of any net benefit whatsoever to the average citizen (namely me).
Max
PeterM:
In my post (#52), I showed that the GHG emissions of the developed world (50% of global totals in 1970) were now less than 30%. I referred to the clearest evidence that the rest of the world has no intention of reducing its emissions and every intention of increasing them. I noted that it’s obvious that there’s nothing anyone could do to change that. I concluded therefore that it would be sensible for the UK “to forget unilateral reduction and concentrate exclusively on strengthening our economy so that we’re well placed to adapt to whatever change the climate (or other event) may bring”. I asked you if you agreed and, if not, to explain why.
But, instead of answering that, you claimed (#53) that I was saying that we should “pretend it isn’t going to happen”. But, as I’m sure you know, that’s not what I’m saying at all: you have a foolish penchant for putting words into others’ mouths. No – what I’m saying is that, even if “the worst predictions of climate scientists do indeed turn out to be accurate” (most unlikely in any case – see Max’s #54), we would be much better placed to cope with the consequences by strengthening our economy than we would if we had weakened it by taking pointless unilateral action to reduce emissions.
You went on to demonstrate yet again that you inhabit that dreamland where “we” can “give it our best shot” and where we can organise a global “cap and trade” scheme.
Peter: there is no “we” to do any of that. Wake up.
PeterM:
Further to my #58, let’s assume that you’ve woken up at last to the improbability of any reductions being made in Mankind’s GHG emissions in the foreseeable future. I know that’s a big assumption – but I suspect even you know that the evidence (#52) strongly supports that view. I suspect you also know that there’s no benign mother figure out there who will dry your tears and make everything alright before bedtime.
Now you’re fond of asking people for a percentage assessment of perceived risk. I imagine that you would say there is a 90/95% chance that what you call “mainstream science” is correct in it’s view of the dangerous AGW hypothesis. But, to be on the safe side, I’ll put that at 100%. With me so far? Next, let’s assume that, despite all the evidence to the contrary and despite the failure of Western governments and agencies to affect this, you still think there’s a chance that the developing world will, as you might put it, “come to its senses” and start a programme of substantial GHG reduction now. Let’s say you think there’s a 15% chance of that happening – that seems to be hopelessly optimistic and I don’t see how even you could put it any higher. So I’m being generous.
OK? So, given the above assumptions, you believe there’s an 85% probability that dangerous climate change is going to occur. So what would you do you about it?
I suggest that, before answering, you consider what coastal communities do when facing the probability of being struck in a few days by a potentially devastating hurricane. Some may hope it won’t happen at all or pray to the gods for deliverance. But the wise ones prepare themselves by, for example, securing their homes, stock and critical supplies and by taking action to protect their most vulnerable people and possessions.
It’s the latter approach I am saying should be adopted by the UK government – “forget unilateral reduction and concentrate exclusively on strengthening our economy so that we’re well placed to adapt to whatever change the climate (or other event) may bring”.
You seem to disagree. Why?
Robin,
It seems, from the tone of various recent comments you’ve made, you know deep down that the scientific case on AGW is sound. For instance you seem to at least acknowledge the 80-90% probability of the IPCC being correct in their assessment of the potential for dangerous climate change.
That’s at least a starting point! The first step is to at least acknowledge the problem, then look at what solutions may be possible. And of course no-one is suggesting that the Old dart should go it alone. The UK still does have an influence in the world and can play a significant part.
Odd as it is, you seem to be in agreement with James Lovelock that no solution is possible. I suppose, if you think that, your only source of comfort is to hope that the scientists are indeed wrong.
PeterM (#60):
Yet again you’re foolishly putting words into my mouth. No, I most certainly don’t “acknowledge the 80-90% probability of the IPCC being correct”. As is wholly clear from my post, I was assuming that to be your view. Was I wrong?
Please stop these endless diversions, read my posts (carefully for once) and answer the question: given the clear fact that the developing world is most unlikely to curtail its GHG emissions (#52), do you agree or disagree with my view that the UK government should “forget unilateral reduction and concentrate exclusively on strengthening our economy so that we’re well placed to adapt to whatever change the climate (or other event) may bring”?
And, if you disagree, please explain why.
Robin,
As I’ve already said, no not unilaterally. But yes multilaterally. A strong economy, again as I’ve already said, won’t save the UK if the rest of the world is in turmoil. You’d have to have a sort of ‘survivalist’ economy instead to prepare for that.
I don’t think you appreciate the problems of climate change. You may know better than I do the vulnerability of large areas of the UK, including London, to rising sea levels.
You have an ally in James Hansen who says, about the cap and trade approach, things like:
“….but the truth is that they [the politicians] know that their planned approach will not come anywhere near achieving the intended global objectives. Moreover, they are now taking actions that, if we do not stop them, will lock in guaranteed failure to achieve the targets that they have nominally accepted.”
The difference is: he still believes that a solution is difficult but possible. You and people like James Lovelock think it’s just too difficult and just about impossible. I really don’t know who will turn out to be right, but it doesn’t make any difference to the scientific case one way or the other.
Robin,
Instead of just a quote you might be interested in a more complete account from this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jarAWIGML5k
Does he really look like he’s interested in taking part in some World conspiracy?
Pete,
You think that some sort of world wide law/policy that will insure the globe against catastrophic weather events……………think about that (to yourself) for just a minute…………
The “world” can’t even decide what terms of measurement to adopt collectively and you think that somehow every government/individual is going to agree on drastically curtailing energy consumption?
That “wealthy” nations are going to voluntarily allow themselves to be extorted to satisfy reparation demands to assuage their “guilt” to prevent your fictitious doomsday scenario?
You’re sicker than I thought…………
I just saw a Unicorn run accross the back of my property……send my $50.00 and I’ll send you the evidence.
God you are naive………and gullible.
Brute,
Have you ever wondered why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights? Its because the clouds are relatively opaque to IR radiation from the ground and slow down the natural energy transfer from a warmer to a colder body.
GHG’s , such as CO2 and methane, have the same effect. If their concentration increases the earth gets warmer. If it falls it gets colder.
What’s “naive” or “gullible” in accepting the principles of basic Physics?
PeterM
Have you ever wondered why cloudy days are cooler than sunny days? Its because the clouds reflect incoming SW radiation from the sun and slow down the natural energy transfer from a warmer to a colder body.
If low altitude clouds increase with increased temperature, as has been physically observed, the earth gets cooled. If these clouds are reduced it gets warmer. [Trenberth has referred to this as a “natural cloud thermostat”.]
What’s “naive” or “gullible” in accepting the principles of basic Physics?
Max
PeterM
You keep deliberating (62) whether or not the “multilateral solution”, whereby all nations of this world unite to reduce global CO2 emissions and GDP (presumably all holding hands and singing “Kumbayah” around a low-carbon footprint campfire) is feasible.
That is the wrong deliberation, Peter. The more basic question is whether or not it is necessary or even desirable.
The “science” seems to indicate that this is not the case.
Max
PeterM (#62):
So your answer to my question about whether or not the UK should reduce GHG emissions unilaterally is “no not unilaterally. But yes multilaterally”. Good – therefore, as the developing economies (by far the greatest emitters) are clearly not going to reduce their emissions (#52), we should forget reduction and strengthen our economy. Were the world ever “in turmoil” (for whatever reason – probably not AGW), it would be vastly preferable to have a strong economy than a weak one. If my house were to catch fire, I’d be glad if I was wealthy enough to have bought a fire extinguisher.
Max,
I think you mean “The “pseudo-science” seems to indicate that this is not the case” :-)
Robin,
Did you mange to watch any of the James Hansen interview? I normally agree with him except on the question of cap and trade. He’s on record, as you’ll know, as saying that he’s pleased that the Copenhagen talks failed.
He’s very much in agreement with you on the question of the developing countries’ unwillingness to accept caps. His proposed solution is a carbon tax. What did you make of his argument?
PeterM
You’ve made a bit of a mistake in your #69. The “pseudo-science” tells us it will warm by up to 6C by year 2100 due to AGW.
The “science” (which I cited in more detail in my number 34 on the “whitewash” thread) tells us it might warm by a fraction of a degree C by year 2100 (as it has from 1850 to today), provided the currently observed “natural cooling factors” do not continue to determine our climate over a longer period.
Get the difference? It’s really quite simple if you think about it a bit.
Max
PeterM
“Alligators, fire insurance, ignorance, and risk” brings to mind the unscrupulous insurance salesman who frightens his prospective customer with “doomsday scenarios” in order to sell him a policy.
In checking out the psychology behind other doomsday scenarios, the “Chicken Licken” (or “Henny Penny”) story comes to mind.
Discussing a 1943 film version, Wiki tells us:
Hmmm… Sound familiar?
Sounds to me a bit like James E. Hansen trying to frighten us all out of our wits in order to sell a “carbon tax”. (Or even worse, Al Gore trying to do the same to sell a “cap and trade scheme” that will make him even richer than he already is.)
Max
Max said: #71
‘..as it has from 1850 to today),’
As it has from 1690 according to our instrumental records, and back to 1610 by taking into account detailed anecdotal records. This was in itself the second phase of a downturn from the well established MWP data which consistently shows records of temperatures notably warmer than today.
Giss/Cru merely plugged into the end of a long established trend.
tonyb
PeterM (#70):
Yes, I watched the Hansen interview – all of it. I won’t analyse it in detail as most of it is not relevant to this discussion. But I will say that he has some extraordinary views (Max: I strongly recommend that you look at it – link). For example, he predicted, re Arctic sea ice, that “we’re probably going to lose all of that in the summer [2009]” and, re “mountain glaciers all around the world”, “most of those will be gone within fifty years” (this was before “HimalayaGate”).
Re current levels of CO2, he says “we’ve already passed the danger level” and an aim to restrict to 450ppm is “too high” and the world must “reduce rapidly” back to “less than 350ppm”. So how’s that to be done?
Well, re Cap & Trade, he’s sure it’s useless – and OK, that seems about right. So, he says, we have to have a carbon tax or fee – and there must be “no exceptions”. However, when he talks about leaving fossil fuels in the ground, he concedes: “it’s pretty difficult for us to tell Russia or Saudi Arabia that there going to have to leave their oil in the ground … they wouldn’t pay much attention”. But, re coal, “boy, we’d better have a moratorium pretty quickly and then phase out the coal emissions over the next few decades …”
Peter, that’s not going to happen – see #52: China, India, South Africa and others are committed to building huge coal-fired power stations over those years (as well as a lot of small ones). Are they any more likely than Russia or Saudi Arabia to “pay much attention”? I think you know the answer.
Re Copenhagen, he claimed there was “beginning to be a movement towards understanding that we need to have a carbon price … and things may change before December”. Er … no comment!
And, re the developing economies, all he had to say was to agree that they might act “if everybody else has a tax” and that “India and China are going to want to limit their requirements for fossil fuels and they can best do that by means of a price [= a tax]. So I think that has a much better chance of being negotiated [at Copenhagen] than a Kyoto style approach”. Well, (i) everybody else is not going to have a tax, (ii) India and China show not the slightest interest in a “limit on their requirements” and (iii) nothing about that was even mentioned at Copenhagen, nor is it on any current agenda.
Peter: I’m truly amazed that you thought that drawing my attention to this video would help your case. Did you watch it yourself?
Robin
Thanks for link.
Yes. I saw the Hansen interview a year ago, but have just re-watched it, in view of all that has happen in the past year.
He sure got a lot of things wrong, but he also got a few things right.
As far as I am concerned (Peter Taylor may disagree) he makes sense on new technology nuclear power, where he is referring to fast-breeder reactors with thorium, which are being tested in a few locations; these will reduce nuclear waste significantly and will reduce the need for new uranium mining (as he says). I believe PeterM agrees with this approach, as well.
He is correct in saying that the public does not understand (or believe) that we have an emergency, since “one or two degrees Fahrenheit” warming over several decades is very small compared to daily and seasonal swings. Since this interview was made a year ago, polls show us that a larger percentage of the public has swung away from believing that AGW is an emergency, further underscoring what he said in the interview.
His analysis is right that Kyoto (carbon caps) did not work in the past and a cap and trade system (as being proposed in USA) will also not work.
His statement is rather naive, however, that India and China could be convinced that a carbon tax makes sense for them if they could be assured that the proceeds would be redistributed to the citizens of these countries. His proposal sounds like a “take from the rich and distribute to the poor (as long as they stay poor” scheme to me. I don’t believe the record shows that China and India want to stay poor, however.
You mentioned his “pre-Himalayagate” gaffe on mountain glaciers and his exaggerated prediction on the the “disappearing Arctic sea ice”. His other short term predictions were totally wrong, as I believe his longer term forecasts of “irreversible tipping points” will also be.
But he comes across as truly believing what he says, as screwy as that may be (refer to “Henny Penny” above).
Max