A hypothetical weather forecast for 2050 is coming true next week

“Climate Economics”, second edition, Richard S. J. Tol, 2019

“False Alarm - How climate change panic cost us trillions, hurts the poor, and fails to fix the planet”, Bjorn Lomborg, 2021

The above are books.

 

You undoubtedly known that Lomborg is an economist, and is strongly disputed for his history of misrepresenting science.

Also, it seems pretty clear that he does NOT actually claim that climate change isn't real.

In a 2010 interview with the New Statesman, Lomborg summarized his position on climate change: "Global warming is real – it is man-made and it is an important problem. But it is not the end of the world."

In April 2015, he called for all subsidies to be removed from fossil fuels, on the basis that "a disproportionate share of the subsidies goes to the middle class and the rich", making fossil fuel so "inexpensive that consumption increases, thus exacerbating global warming"


Do you agree with that position?

 

Of course Lomborg is an economist. So is Tol. Both of them have in no way misrepresented anything.

I have already stated that the modern warming period started in the 1880’s at the end of the little ice age. The globe has warmed approximately 1.5 degrees C in that time period which has been net beneficial.

What subsidies are you talking about?

 

I think you mean what subsides is Lomborg talking about. That was HIS quote.

There are many ways in which fossil fuel is subsidized, as economists such as Lomborg know.

But, the main point is that your cited author is not disputing climate change. At times, he has stated that we should ignore it until it gets serious. The problem with that is that we have no ideas that cause an immediate change in climate. They all have significant lead times.

At other times, he has stated that we should stop subsidizing fossil fuel, because of the damage it is doing.

One of the challenges of climate change is that the issue involves the degree to which we should care about what Earth is like in the future. If we drastically cut back on CO2 emissions today, it will take significant time for atmospheric chemistry to change. Plus, we have no way to drastically cut back. Reducing fossil fuel use is the major factor where we have some control, but we can't just cut out all fossil fuel use - we can only change over time.

So, Lomborg says we should stop subsidizing fossil fuel - which we do in many ways.

 

What are these subsidies. You are using his statement pulled out of context to make some point and can’t explain what the subsidies are?

It doesn’t matter what the concentration is. We livig in a time of CO2 depletion. Global policy should be to maximize economic growth and wealth creation to more easily adapt to any localized negative effects of warming. Most of the increased costs would be air conditioning costs. Would you rather have 98% of $500 or 96% of $1000?

If you are interested in the totality of Lomborg’s fact based beliefs and opinions read “False Alarm” and stop pulling out of context quotes out of alarmist opinion pieces.

 

The only person I quoted was Lomborg.

The issue today is that Earth is warming, and the reason is CO2 and other greenhouse gasses.

We subsidize fossil fuel through tax incentives of various kinds, by allowing the fossil fuel industry to ignore the costs of pollution and waste products of various kinds and ignoring the price we pay in healthcare for fossil fuel use, including in transportation.

One take:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-costs-fossil-fuels

 

CO2 is NOT the reason that the earth is warming. It’s a contributor but the overall effect is beneficial.

What tax incentives? Expensing equipment costs is not a tax incentive. And it does not result in an ooverall loss of tax revenues.

Fossil fuels are responsible for the hreatest acceleration in the standard of living ever seen in our world. Factor that into your external costs thinking.

 

You are not comparing issues that are comparable.

CO2 IS causing warming.

Any possible net benefit of more CO2 does not alter that.

There are deductions for every well drilled as it it is a new business. There is the very low charge for taking the substances pumped, which are a national asset. There are various other tax related benefits to extraction companies. You didn't ask about the other issues, so I'll leave it at that.

I cited a document showing numerous costs that are not internalized - so we're pretending we get fossil fuel for a low cost, because we're ignoring many of the costs. In economics such costs are called externalities. We're not accounting for the externalities.

As Lomborg points out, we should be including all the costs of fossil fuel in the price of fossil fuel, and we shouldn't be giving tax breaks in order to increase the amount of fossil fuel we burn. Remember that Lomborg is an economist.

As for how great fossil fuel is, I'm right with you. Fossil fuel has been GREAT. And, it is especially great given that we subsidize it.

But, it is also causing the Earth to warm, as our use of fossil fuel produces huge amounts of CO2. That is a GIGANTIC externality that is totally irresponsible to simply ignore.

 

Actually, according to all geological records times of warmer temperatures are even more productive.

Great plant coverage on the planet, greater food production. Much greater diversity in the biosphere with increased growing seasons. And over time, even more land available for cultivation once the tundra and permafrost is gone and areas like Siberia and Alaska can once again return to fertile grasslands instead of the more marshlands that exists there today.

Seems to me that is something everybody would want. Especially as humidity will also rise and rainfall increase globally. Once again, which has happened after each ice age cycle.

 

The problem is that people live where they do today and people find food as they do today.

Also, you have to remember that climate is not the same everywhere, and suggesting that climate will be the same throughout the future of a warming planet is nonsense. We see that isn't true today.

Warming may in fact cause Canada to have better agriculture than today. However, it is crystal clear that others will have worse agriculture.

So, are you expecting Canada to donate food? Are you expecting Canada to allow mass migration to Canada?

 

It does no good, for him and others like him it is a religion. Facts do not matter worth a damn.

Oh, and for all the hype that Will and others give to the NOAA and others, think about this.

At the start of the year, experts at NOAA and others were predicting this would be the worst hurricane season ever. With at least 20 major storms in the Atlantic.

https://www.noaa.gov/news-release/noaa-predicts-above-normal-2022-atlantic-hurricane-season

https://www.inverse.com/science/2022-hurricane-season-katrina-2005

Now how in the hell anybody could make the claim that storms produced more rain than a world without global warming, I have absolutely no idea. Once again, that is a nonsensical claim. What, there would have been less rain 15 kya when we were still in an ice age? Absolute coprolite. Yet people believe this kind of nonsense and eat it up.

https://www.livescience.com/57671-hurricane-season.html

Now think about this as we enter into September, and have not had a single hurricane. In fact, we have only had three named Tropical Storms. That's it, just three strong storms and not a single hurricane at all.

And now tell me once again about the accuracy of the NOAA predictions. Like so many others they are pushing so hard about "Global Warming". Every time there is a storm anywhere, they blame it on Global Warming. Seems to me that they are more interested in pushing a narrative than actually following science.

Of course, since Will does not even know what a reference is let alone how to use one, do not expect things like this from him.

 

If you want to count all the costs then count all the benefits as well. To not do so is intellectually dishonest. The externality is net positive. Alarmists have it totally backwards.

A d the warming (from whatever cause) is beneficial.

Fossil fuels in the ground are not a national asset. It takes fossil fuel companies to extract, refine, and bring to market these resources. And they pay taxes in the process of doing so. And in doing so they provide a great service and a great benefit to the citizens of the US.

 

As for fossil fuels in the ground, no nation looks at it the way you propose - certainly not the USA.

I'm fine with you and others pointing out benefits.

But, I see NO chance that the benefits you could possibly find would outweigh the costs that are projected.

 

And people in the past have always moved.

Once again, a complete lack of understanding of any real science. Even anthropology.

What, do you think humans have always lived where they do now? Well, that is a lie if that is what you were told.

Hell, tell those that live in England now to go back to Doggerland. Or the Indians in the Bay Area to go back to their former hunting and fishing lands. Near the Farallon Islands where the river runs into the Pacific.

Oh, wait. You can't do either of those. Because that land has been underwater now for thousands of years.

Once again, you are making the exact same mistake, in thinking that the planet is static and should never change. Well, it is going to keep changing. And you can't stop it!

Let me guess, if you were alive 10,000 years ago you would have been screaming at Global Warming, and how the melting of those giant glaciers covering New York was going to destroy the planet.

If an area gets so it can not sustain the population, they should move. Hell, humans have been doing that for over 100,000 years now. It is not my fault if they live in a place with no food.

Oh, and in reality that is almost never really true. Almost all famines are not caused by the environment, but by government. Starvation now in Sudan? Starvation now in North Korea? Starvation now in Yemen? Starvation now in Nigeria?

The greatest famine in human history that killed over 55 million in 2 years in China?

Every single one of those is caused not by nature, but by people. Even the one in Ethiopia decades ago that saw all kinds of people donating money and making records. A man made famine, by a government starving its population in order to make them comply with their orders.

 

The consensus of economic analyses which count both benefits and costs is that the benefits outway the costs (which amount to approximately 1 global gdp year out of the next century). Read Tol’s Climate Economics.

 

???

The USA, a relatively wealthy country, gets seriously upset with a few migrating across our southern border.

India has a wall against migration from Bangladesh.

Etc.

Yet, you claim that movement is a solution? Please explain.

 

That is not nearly good enough.

Again you say NOTHING about what the costs are assumed to be.

And, you are not saying what the benefits are assumed to be.

 

I have provided two references. Warming increases the growing season, increases the amount of arable land, and increases the amount of precipitation. Increasing CO2 increases the growth rate of plants. Warming also reduces the illness and death rates caused by the cold.

The major cost increase is that of air conditioning. Reducing the government imposed policies which increase the price of fossil fuels reduces economic growth and thus the capability to adapt to localized issues resulting from global warming. Policies to limit the use of fossil fuels are regressive meaning that they do more harm to low income people than high income people.

How can anyone support such policies?

 

And once again, you take nothing of what I actually said, and turn it into something completely different. And making it something political.

Humans migrated for tens of thousands of years, are you not aware of that? Hell, all those "barbarian hordes" that swept into Rome originated from Asia. Who were pushed by other groups from even deeper in Asia. Ultimately the Goths, Visigoths, and all the rest were pushed West by the Huns in Central Asia. Who were in turn pushed West by the Mongols.

In over 100,000 years, mankind is still completely new at actually staying put in a single location. Most cultures never did it, they only stayed for a few years at most then moved on again.

That has nothing to do with wealth.

 

Air conditioning is not even required. That is simply comfort.

 

Surely. But that is what results from maximizing wealth creation and the standard of living resulting from the use of inexpensive fossil fuels available 24/7/365. More comfort.

 

I'm not going to read your books. There are LOTS of books, and my reading list is full already.

I know your logic here. I just don't agree. Warming, agricultural decline, etc., allow for disease, not health.

Your analysis seems to be US centric.

 

Oh, not even that. "Air Conditioning" is not even new, or require any kind of energy expenditure.

It is simply that in the modern era, nobody in most parts of the world designs like that anymore. Today all buildings are designed with a central heat and cooling source, that does not mean that such did not exist before.

Hell, for tens of thousands of years the most effective way to do that throughout the world was very simple. Living in caves, which have a constant year round temperature. After that it became living underground, or at least partially underground. The same thing. Our methods of construction today are largely only a century or so old, and designed around such things as electricity.

That is why during the most intense parts of the "Cold War", my bugout plans included around a dozen mines I had explored and plotted out. The amazing things about mines and caves is that they naturally are at the average annual temperature of where they are located. Which in Idaho means around 60-65 degrees. Summer or winter, no matter how hot or cold it is outside.

What so many fail to grasp in topics like this is what humans have been doing for hundreds of thousands of years. There is a reason why we are the most advanced primate on the planet. And even though we evolved in the sweltering plains and savannahs of Africa, we have come to thrive on all but one continent on the planet.

All long before "electricity" of any kind.

 

Agricultural decline? No, quite the opposite.

I suggest you add to your list reading about the Medieval Warm Period. When temperatures and food production soared. Plants like warmer weather. And warmer temperatures also makes conditions more humid, something else that plants love.

What is actually bad for agriculture is cold. Plants do not grow in it, that is why the year after 1816 saw massive global famines that killed millions.

Like always, your claims are completely backwards because you can not even begin to grasp what temperatures mean and do. But tell me this, you compile a list of crop production per acre in Norway, and I will compile a similar list of crop production in Oklahoma. Let's see which one is the most productive. Because if your claims are correct, colder Norway should produce a vast more crops than hot Oklahoma.

 

I addressed that explicitly.

Our world today does NOT accept movement of people that is within a country mile of solving the issues of climate change.

We know that, because no country welcomes those from other countries in numbers that would do that.

In the history of which you speak, population density was not even close to what it is today, so moving was a real possibility in many parts of the world. Plus, even then mass migration was usually strongly resisted.

Remember that the USA didn't have restrictions on immigration until 1917. Those restrictions have gotten more serious as the number of people who want to move has increased. Even at current numbers, it is a serious national issue, with a significant portion of America calling for a near total end to immigration.

As I pointed out, that's true in other parts of the world, too. India has a wall against Bangladesh for this reason, for one example.