?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
14 April 2011 @ 01:47 pm
CCNet - 12, 13 April Climate Refugees, Fear Itself  

CCNet – 12 April 2011

The Climate Policy Network

What Happened To The Climate Refugees?


Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by 2010, experts warn today. "There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change," Dr Bogardi said. "This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations." --David Adam, The Guardian, 12 October 2005

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production. A very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world. -- Gavin Atkins, Asian Correspondent, 11 April 2011

The study's findings affect both energy transfer and the sequestration and release of CO2, the climate lobby's favorite smoking gun. This bears repeating because, despite many such revelations, climate change catastrophists and ecological prophets of doom continue to base their case on outdated, disproven models. This is just the latest in a number of such findings, highlighting the inadequacy of climate models. --Doug L Hoffman, The Resilient Earth, 10 April 2011

The fact is that the IPCC’s model only takes into account changes in solar radiation and how those changes are mediated by aerosols in the atmosphere due to volcanoes. Nowhere is there anything about any other climate cycle due to the oceans or the atmosphere, or stratospheric water vapour changes, or what we now understand about how differential solar spectral variations may affect the climate, over periods decadal or otherwise. It has been reported that influential people have been convinced by the IPCC curve fitting argument. Now we know that it was based on inadequate science. All those who were convinced by it, and use it in arguments, should revaluate their position and await a new statement by the IPCC. –-David Whitehouse, The Observatory, 11 April 2011

A definition of political insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. Based on that, politicians supporting the so-called "solutions" to man-made global warming -- Kyoto accord, cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, renewable energy -- are insane. --Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun, 12 April 2011

1) What Happened To The Climate Refugees? - Asian Correspondent, 11 April 2011

2) David Whitehouse: Inadequate Models, Inadequate Conclusions - The Observatory, 11 April 2011

3) Science Mag: Computer Climate Models Use False Assumptions - The Resilient Earth, 10 April 2011

4) David Evans: Climate Models Go Cold - Financial Post, 8 April 2011

5) Lorrie Goldstein: The Political Insanity Of Climate Change - Toronto Sun, 12 April 2011

CCNet – 13 April 2011 Fear Itself: Overreaction To Risk Is A Costly Folly

In the face of a low-probability fearsome risk, people often exaggerate the benefits of preventive, risk-reducing, or ameliorative measures. Many people will focus, much of the time, on the emotionally perceived severity of the outcome, rather than on its likelihood.  Vivid images and concrete pictures of disaster can ‘crowd out’ the cognitive activity required to conclude and consider the fact that the probability of disaster is really small. --Cass Sunstein and Richard Zeckhauser, Overreaction to Fearsome Risks

Scared people who don’t understand or care about parsing probabilities end up spending far more than is rational to avoid truly tiny risks. Worse yet, policy makers are often stampeded by frightened constituents into enacting regulations that cost far more than the benefits they offer in risk reduction. --Ronald Bailey, Reason Online, 12 April 2011

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. --H.L. Mencken

Russell Jones, American Petroleum Institute’s senior economic adviser, called the Shale study bunk. "This study lacks credibility and is full of contradictions,” Jones said. “The main author is an evolutionary biologist and an anti-natural gas activist who is not credentialed to do this kind of chemical analysis." --International Business Times, 13 April 2011

There is no energy shortage. What we have is a shortage of energy that we are allowed to be used. The list of energies we are allowed to use just keeps getting shorter. Techno-politico elitists are busily crossing out everything on the list, like coal, nuclear, all petroleum products, wood, and biofuels. The latest to join that list is the hope of the future: natural gas.—Pierre Gosslin, NoTricks Zone, 13 April 2011

The previously anti-nuclear Lib Dem, who famously became pro-nuclear on appointment to Energy Secretary, is yet to pronounce definitively on what the Japan atomic disaster may mean for UK plans for 10 new stations. But he has ordered an inquiry into safety concerns and several ministers seem to be smoothing the way for a new official line – that we don’t need nuclear power after all. Rowena Mason, The Daily Telegraph, 11 April 2011

High carbon alternatives, such as coal and gas, may be used to ensure energy security if investors believe nuclear power is no longer a viable option. Using these alternatives would further detract from the Government’s CO2 reduction target of 80 per cent by 2050. --Emily Smoucha, Green Wise Business, 12 April 2011

What may be just as worrying to UK politicians is the impact of greater safety requirements on the cost of building each £5bn nuclear power station. The Government simply cannot ask the UK consumer to bear much more cost on their electricity bills without pushing thousands more into fuel poverty. -- Rowena Mason, The Daily Telegraph, 11 April 2011

1) Ronald Bailey: Overreaction To Risk Is A Costly Folly - Reason Online, 12 April 2011

2) Growing Nuclear Concerns May Deter Investors In UK - Green Wise Business, 12 April 2011

3) Is Chris Huhne Preparing For His Second U-turn On Nuclear? - The Daily Telegraph, 11 April 2011

4) Shale Gas Study Disputed - International Business Times, 13 April 2011

5) Britain Set To Veto EU Carbon Tax Plans - Euractiv, 13 April 2011

6) Alan Carlin: A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach To The Economics of Climate Change - The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 12 April 2011

7) Research On Forecasting For The Manmade Global Warming Alarm - The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 13 April 2011