Public opinion isn’t always a reliable guide, but, given time, and a reasonable hearing of the issues, ordinary people get most things right in the end. The Lowy Institute survey released recently illustrates this with respect to climate change. Respondents were given three choices of viewpoint on climate change, as follows
There is a controversy over what the countries of the world, including Australia, should do about the problem of global warming. I’m going to read you three statements. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view.
Easily the most popular option, supported by more than two thirds (68%) of respondents, was that ‘global warming is a serious and pressing problem [and] we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’. A quarter (24%) of respondents agreed that ‘the problem of global warming should be addressed, but its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost’. The least popular option, supported by only 7% of respondents, was that ‘until we are sure that global warming is really a problem we should not take any steps that would have economic costs’.
Not surprisingly, I agree with the majority, but I don’t have too much of a problem with the second position either. Kyoto is a low-cost first step, and gradualism is appropriate. The third position, which is pretty much that of John Howard, has even less support than I would have expected.
But where does this leave the denialists, who dominate the opinion pages of the Oz, and most of the rightwing blogosphere? Their view, that the whole thing is a hoax cooked up by greenies and scientists looking for grant money, wasn’t presented, but looking at the results it’s hard to believe it would attract more than 1 or 2 per cent of the population, on a par with theories that NASA faked the moon landings, or that the US government was behind 9/11.
John Quiggin 
Talking of denialists…
Andrew Bolt abused my research: climate scientist
Denialists appear to be straw people erected by the reductionists. The effect of the shouting at the denialists is to drown out any measured discussion of the ways to respond (reduction plus adaptation) to climate change.
Denialist have the effect of keeping the debate one dominated by the climate scientists rather than a debate bringing in all the specialists advice that we will need to respond (reductions and adaptations) to climate change.
The survey suffer from the problems of all surveys that ask people to spend money rather than measuring what they spend.
What is the total amount of extra cost paid by people on those things that are already available and will reduce emissions eg so called green electricity and the Compact fluoro globes? In both cases my guess would be about 1 to 2 % of the total purchasers (by number of purchasers) of such measures. I thought economists were interested in behaviour.
So, taust, you think that Bolt, Carter, Devine, Milloy, Seitz, Singer and the rest of that crew are figments of our imagination? If only. It was just the other day that you were complaining we were oppressing ExxonMobil, and now you say we make them up.
As regards discussion of reduction+adaptation, this is exactly what I and most other people who take the issue seriously spend our time on. It’s the denialists and those who give them cover (yes, I’m talking to you) who derail the debate.
Its pretty clear where the denialist come from. Our media is owned by right wingers and will say what their owners want. I am really surprised by the results of that survey. It suggests that our media is even further from main stream opinion than I would ever have guessed.
The appalling lack of competition in the Australia media landscape is the source of this problem. The dwindling number of media sources and owners, and the relentless cost pressure they are under has allowed a media to develop that is completely out of touch with Australia. And the worst thing is that no-one has even noticed.
I have often wondered what the result would be of a genuinely and unapologetically leftish newspaper with a tablodish bent opening up in Sydney. If it was very hard hitting and was as well done with the same quality and quantity of resources as the Daily Telegraph think it would quickly end up with a biggest circulation in Sydney. God knows they would get half of the Sydney market almost by default. The Tele, SMH and Australian do not even seem to know that Western Sydney exists, let alone that most people in Sydney live there.
John;
I think you are having two ways at once.
Do you believe the survey you drew attention to? In that case all those you mentioned are having no or little effect.
Or do you stand by the monstering you gave me for calling it like it is ‘the Denialists are now having little effect’.
You actually know this because you are working on the adaptation (very quietly though. Who are you afraid of?)
If by stating my view that the rational actions for Australia is to concentrate on adaptation ( given the probability of effective action by the rest of the world on emissions. the nil effect on climate change of any action by Australia and the urgent need to inform people about the rational approaches to adaptation) I give cover to the denialists. I am laughably unsuccessful given your long list of denialists with much louder voices than mine.
I stand proudly by my not approving of the Royal Society suppressing dissent by trying to get to the dissenters sources of money stopped. I still have not seen a defence for this type behaviour in a free society.
Presumably the reference to Exxonmobile is to coat me in Big Oil tar. Make sure the tar is all off your hands.
I perceive that it may be your viewpoint that the suppression of dissent is OK. I am surprised.
I am interested in your views on my points about the survey. I always interested in new ways of analysing data to extract information.
I am also interested on how the mitigators can keep silent about the rorts being played by our governments on poor people. Rorts such as the totally PR related actions on green house emissions such as the photoelectric subsidies. The denialists have some moral faults but so do the mitigators.
I think you would also estimate that the cost to the poor of these PR rorts in the name of greenhouse far outweigh the cost to the poor of the ineffective denialists.
“The effect of the “shouting” at the denialists is to drown out any measured discussion of the ways to respond to climate change.”
So when are the denialists going to shut up and stop interfering in measured discussion?
So when are the denialists going to shut up and stop interfering in measured discussion?
When the lefties stop their dishonest alarmism
Proust gives further confirmation of the proposition that denialists (when they aren’t simply paid hacks) are motivated by rightwing ideology rather than science. With less than 7 per cent support among the general population, and zero support (to the nearest tenth of a per cent) among qualified scientists, proust regards everyone who disagrees with him as a lefty.
Chris;
Run through the scenario that rather than debating ad infinitum the reality of climate change the debate was changed to how to adapt to the change.
I suspect the denialists would be wrong footed and the debate would be more productive.
However the mitigationists ( reductio ad absurdum comes to mind as a phrase) wish to show their ideology to controlling the world rather than entering into meaningful debate on the practical ways forward.
JQ is working away in silence on useful work on the economics of adaptation. It does not appear that his adaptation work is what he wants people to discuss. Rather he wants to discuss the science of climate change. JQ is just an example of a large group of people.
It was the same situation with the Competition reforms. A great public debate on what most economists were agreed on: the need for reforms. No debate on who was going to get hurt by the reforms.
The result was a group of teens and a group of 50+ thrown on the scrapheap.
Now just as our economy has developed enough to provide the descendants of these groups with jobs we are going to go into another structural adjustment of the economy. The mitigation adjustment gives no economic advantage to Australia, will have no effect on climate change, but will assuredly have losers. Let us at least identify who the losers will be (probably the same groups as before) and tell them ahead of time.
JQ and the other economists should be able to tell us from their models who are going to be the losers, but no revelations so far. Plenty of forecasts of the new millennium our descendants will enjoy 50 or 100 years ahead based on a scientific analysis. Any resemblance to late 19th century ideas is by coincidence.
Umm, Taust, have you ever read my work on the competition reforms? There’s quite a lot, I’m quite well known for it (among people who know anything about the subject, at any rate) and it doesn’t exactly match your description.
And as regards silence on adaptation, take a look at the paper I presented in Perth and the article I published in the Fin on the same theme. They’re all about the need to adapt to drier climate – not that that stopped the denialists focusing on the statement of fact and ignoring the discussion of adaptation.
It was the same situation with the Competition reforms. A great public debate on what most economists were agreed on: the need for reforms. No debate on who was going to get hurt by the reforms.
You see some funny things in the blogosphere, but this one should get a prize. It’s akin to someone complaining to Keith Richards that guitarists don’t play riffs.
taust, what exactly is your position?
We should:
a) Do everything we can to mitigate climate change and do everything we can to adapt to climate change?
b) Do what we can to mitigate climate change (as long as the economic costs are minimal) and do everything we can to adapt to climate change?
c) Do nothing to mitigate climate change and only attempt to adapt to climate change?
Of course, all of this assumes we can adapt to climate change. I would suggest the single biggest adaption humanity could make to a radically changed climate is to reduce our numbers by 90%. I don’t think anyone wants that.
JQ;
I would appreciate a link to a paper where you discussed the human losers from competition reform.
The survey you quoted demonstrated that the denialists are no longer getting traction.
Do we know whether or not the discussions of the adaptations we need to make are getting traction?
In the survey you quoted do you think the 68% were meaning we needed to take action to adapt to the climate change?
CS
I am sorry your analogy is lost on me. I have abject lack of knowledge as you and JQ are discovering. Who is Keith Richards and what is a riff? I would guess activities discussed at the table of the cafe latte drinking policy elite. Are they important insider jargon?
taust, try googling on both questions, assuming of course that you have heard of ‘google’. Btw, what planet do you live on?
“No debate on who was going to get hurt by the reforms.”
Taust, google “competition and reforms” and Quiggin and you’ll get enough reading material to last you for a couple of years.
“Who is Keith Richards and what is a riff? I would guess activities discussed at the table of the cafe latte drinking policy elite.”
If you google “Keith Richards”, you get 3,510,000 sites. There’s enough there to last you several lifetimes.
Common sense on climate change would be to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. However what we will do is common sense consistant with rich people like us still making money, and hope that is good enough.
What is the plan if it is not?
quiggin:
“With less than 7 per cent support among the general population, and zero support (to the nearest tenth of a per cent) among qualified scientists, proust regards everyone who disagrees with him as a lefty.”
My link was to your brown
eyeing Australia post. You claim 100% of qualified scientists (to the nearest tenth of a percent) would support your conclusions in that post?I guess that is consistent with the tendency towards totalitarianism of all lefty ideologues.
“…not that that stopped the denialists focusing on the statement of fact and ignoring the discussion of adaptation.”
If the statement of fact is anything but, isn’t that a more appropriate place to focus the discussion? Oh, I forgot, lefties don’t like being judged by such baroque notions as truth, or by the outcomes of their policies – intent is all that matters.
In my opinion either ban Taust or ignore him/her, but whatever you do don’t engage with him/her, as they are clearly an ideological warrior and a troll to boot.
A most interesting debate. Unfortuneately somewhat short on fact – long on rhetoric. That there is Global Warming appears to be a fact. Certainly there is a warm dry spell.
Is this a natural cycle of the Earth? That needs to be answered. Is it caused by mans activities? This needs to be answered only if the answer to the first question is “no.” All the rhetoric does not do this argument any good. We need facts, scientific facts. as to how mans activities are causing this event. Suspicion may abound but many can remember the “Acid Rain” that suddenly wasn’t any more…. After a scientific investigation.
I gather that even if we were to cease all GHG generation immediately, the seas will keep on rising for a hundred years or so anyway, even after the temperatures stabilise. We will have to both act and adapt. If we don’t act now, the adaptation will be that much harder. I am heartened by the results of the survey mentioned; let’s hope our allegedly “poll-driven” PM sees it!
carbonsink
For Australia (i.e. the rest of the world can take the actions that are in their interests) – my position is closest to your b. Again I stress I am talking Australia only.
To the ones who kindly pointed out the potential of Google.
I asked JQ to direct me to one paper that discussed his position on the human losers from competition reform. It would save me a lot of time rather than having to speed read numerous papers to identify my needs. I am sure JQ with his knowledge could direct me to his paper that best addresses the issue.
I might sometime Google- riffle- it might lead to some interesting sites.
However in that section of my post basically I was pointing out to CS the analogy was far too sophisticated for a non-elite like me.
Alex,
Show me anywhere in my posts where I have taken up a position based on ideology rather than one in which I have, when asked, outlined rational reasons for holding the views that I hold.
For the record I have difficulty fitting myself into any ideology. Perhaps ideology is what elites suffer from.
I can see you are further advanced than the Royal Society in measures to suppress dissent. If you need further instruction I understand the legislation developed by President Bush of the USA is a good starting point.
I suppose I better Google what a troll is.
Alex;
troll (wikipedia version)
a troll is often someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls. Often, trolls assume multiple aliases, or sock puppets.
Thank you for increasing my knowledge of the arcane.
My family of four has done the folllowing:
1. install a photovoltaic system (rebate)
2. install a solar hotwater system (no rebate)
3. planted 20,000+ trees
4. recycles
5. composts
6. uses public transport
Is it enough? I don’t believe it is.
Does it make us feel superior in some way? No.
Will we be any better off than the denialists if the worst case eventuates? No.
I’m sick and tired of this issue being reduced to a petty left-right thing. It isn’t. This is a potential danger to life itself. Even if there were only a small chance of runaway climate change it is unforgiveble to take a risk with the only planet we have. We are morally bound to do what we can.
What about those dastardly people who don’t quite fit any of the above categories?
Could there be room for those with the reasonable attitude that anthropogenic global warming is probably happening. Who despite the fact it is so difficult to determine a great deal from the earth’s weather system from the past and in the present, let alone the future…still accept anthropogenic global warming is occuring but as a relatively small contributor to overall global warming and climate change.
And then there are those who don’t accept mitigation through reduction in human economic output as the complete answer to ‘global warming’.
Some would like to know what benefits a bit of anthropogenic global warming may bring to the world’s populations, as opposed to the usual indulgence of apocalyptic scenarios. Surely there must be some, would be a bit suspicious if there wasn’t? And then how about weighing those benefits against the negatives?
As a result we can then thrash out whether curbing economic growth is the best and only approach. Other options may become apparent such as the need to increase economic growth and industrialise and modernise large parts of the less developed world to enable them to withstand the ravages of nature better, as they are more likely to suffer the effects of climate change greater than the more developed world. When the developing world becomes more affluent measures to implement more expensive environmentally friendly technologies should be more accessible. Therefore the benefits of increased global production (particulary in the developing world) need to be weighed against decreasing human production globally.
Some would like to see a risk analysis of how mitigation alone may actually jeopardise our global welfare. If global warming continues despite vast reductions in global productive capacity will we be finally exposed completely to the ravages of ‘nature’s revenge’ without a leg to stand on? Particularly if the environmental predictions of global cooling from the 1970’s begin to emerge.
And why isn’t anyone prepared to discuss geo-engineering options to tackle climate change? Mainstream politicians and Greens wish to shut down all discussion on the subject completely? So how serious are they about tackling the problem?
Some would like to see a more reasoned debate on the subject. The broader and more open the debate the closer we will get to the solution. Rather than ‘doom or denial or a bit of both’.
What I think we all stand to lose in a limited debate is not the planet, but the vital faith in the well tried and tested human capacity to create problems, resolve them and prosper.
Thanks for opening this very important debate John.
CS the analogy was far too sophisticated for a non-elite like me
So taust, when did rock & roll become identified with “the elite”? Who is going to let the masses in on this breaking news? What do unsophisticated non-elites like yourself do for music these days? Howl at the moon?
It is disappointing to find this new thread when JQ & co have failed to address (despite promises by JQ) the substantive issues raised by Ian Castles and others at the end of the previous two “warming” threads. One suspects the new thread was started to avoid dealing with the inconvenient questions posed by Castles in the previous.
The survey that begins this thread is also of questionable provenance – was it randomly selected from the public at large or from a pre-selected sample? I have some reason (correct me if I am wrong) to believe it was the latter, comprising members/mailing list of the Lowy Institute.
To recap Ian Castles’ position as I understand it, there is some evidence of general warming at present, albeit not enough yet to know that this is a secular trend, and much less evidence that there is a secular declining rainfall trend. There is even less evidence that the effects of current warming even if extrapolated to the worst case IPCC scenario for 2100 will have any harmful effects. The IPCC’s efforts to quantify the net negative effects of warming by say 5C by 2100 are far from convincing, and certainly much more implausible if possible than their worst case scenarios for emissions growth to 2100. I would be interested to hear of any data to the contrary.
TOS, There’s ample evidence that a warming of 5 degrees C would be catastrophic. This is way outside the range of recent human experience. Even 5 degrees F would, as noted by James Hansen amount to a whole different planet.
And your suggestion that the Lowy survey is derived from their mailing list is absurd. I quote from the paper reporting the survey
“In Australia, Market Focus International conducted 1007 interviews between 19 June and 6 July 2006. Interviews were conducted by telephone, the most cost-effective method available. The sample was designed to be nationally representative of all Australians of 18 years and over.”
Taust, you are indeed acting as a troll. You’ll get no more responses from me until you start making a constructive contribution. I’m leaving your comments on competition policy up for amusement value, but more of the same and you’ll be banned.
Wrong I am afraid John, the 77% are dead right – read this book and start actively and constructively panicking. George Monbiot’s book Heat: how to stop the planet burning is now published by Penguin. He has also launched a new website – turnuptheheat.org – exposing fake corporate initiatives on climate change.
David – “My family of four has done the folllowing:
1. install a photovoltaic system (rebate)
2. install a solar hotwater system (no rebate)
3. planted 20,000+ trees
4. recycles
5. composts
6. uses public transport”
Thats really good. I have not installed the panels or hotwater yet however the plans are with house management at the moment for approval. It is small things like this that will make a difference.
TOM – “there is some evidence of general warming at present, albeit not enough yet to know that this is a secular trend, and much less evidence that there is a secular declining rainfall trend.”
You cannot have evidence of future trends. No matter who does them with what they are all totally speculative. Ian is asking climate scientists to be definate and exact with the future which no reputable scientist would ever do. The Earth’s climate system is to complex and poorly understood to give a definite answer.
“There is even less evidence that the effects of current warming even if extrapolated to the worst case IPCC scenario for 2100 will have any harmful effects.”
Models, economic or otherwise, can only give ranges of where the future might fall. There is no evidence that the warming will be benign either yet you and Ian seem to be assuming that because the IPCC cannot provide evidence that the warming will be harmful then this automatically means that it will be not harmful. There is not evidence of either position.
We do not actually know what is going to happen. We can guess however we could be wrong. Again what is your plan if you are wrong and climate change is not adaptable to?
Dave Allen:
I’m sick and tired of this issue being reduced to a petty left-right thing.
You are right, it is a shame. But faced with rank hypocricsy (eg, Al Gore wandering the planet in a private jet while exhorting us to emit less), and rank dishonesty (eg, JQ’s threads on browning/drying of SE Australia), you’d forgive us righties from being just a little suspicious.
I would like to hear prominent lefty environmentalists/economists/climatologists come out and say they don’t want to take my freedoms away, that they aren’t looking to use this issue to further their socialist hive goals, that all they want is to find the cheapest and easiest way to reduce greenhouse gases. Other than that, viva capitalism and freedom.
Say that and keep saying that and this is one right-winger who will help you. Otherwise, global warming will remain a casualty of a far more important ideological battle, because if you take my liberty you take my life.
I think Proust tells us all we need to know about himself – until he’s worked out the political implications, he’s going to deny the science.
But for those who are panicking about those implications, relax. The costs of stabilising concentrations of CO2 are very modest – a reduction of less than 0.1 percentage points in annual economic growth over the next 50 years, and are more than offset by the avoided costs of climate change. And tradeable emissions permits have long been a favored proposal of free-market environmentalists – they’re hardly a socialist plot.
The debate between social democrats and neoliberals (or, if proust prefers between liberty and the socialist hivemind) doesn’t depend in any important way on climate change. To give just one example, healthcare is much more important as a source of growth in the relative importance of the state.
Climate change is important because it’s important in itself, not as an ideological football. The vast majority of Australians, right or left, have already realised this.
…until he’s worked out the political implications, he’s going to deny the science.
Where have I denied the science? I admit to decrying the particular brand of alarmist pseudo-science peddled by ideologues such as yourself, but nowhere have I denied the science itself.
If tradable emissions permits involve no additional cash flowing into government coffers, I’ll back them. But only once the effects of AGW become obvious. Give it another decade or two. Let loose the power of the free market to fix the problem once the science has matured (and if you claim it is already mature, try downloading one of the GCM models and getting sesible answers out of it *without* building in your assumptions of AGW).
But I am still very suspicious of your motives. I note that you haven’t said you don’t want to take away my liberty.
Proust said:
“and if you claim it is already mature, try downloading one of the GCM models and getting sesible answers out of it *without* building in your assumptions of AGW”
And what does this mean?
The models now for used for weather forecasting have the same phsyics as those used for climate studies. The difference is that atmospheric and oceanic obs run the forecasting model to the last ob, then forward for about 7-10 days. It predicts weather because of the real world conditions used to start it. The predictability horizon for weather (not climate) is about that length.
The climate model is run so that the ocean and climate are in equilibrium (warm start) and then let go. If the radiative forcing is kept constant, then the model produces a climate and internal variability consistent with that forcing. If the radiative forcing is increased, the model will respond to that forcing. The difference between models from different labs is due to the different physical schemes used to model some of the changing processes. These are being updated all the time, as observational experiments and mathematics are used to improve out understanding of those processes.
If one rejects the output of climate models because of the input radiative forcing, they have made a value judgement. This is a circular argument, because rejection of the input means the output also cannot be accepted.
This view is independent of the science. The models are as sensible as they can be made to be. You will get an honest accounting of the relationship between climate forcing and climate-related impacts from the great majority of professional climate scientists. The latest science is suggesting that serious impacts may occur even with low emission reference scenarios – thus there is a real and appreciable risk.
If you want to argue that humans and/or the environment as it is generally valued, are not threatened by those impacts as described, that is your prerogative, but try and do it sensibly.
Notions of liberty are also value judgements. They have nothing to do with the veracity of scientific conclusions.
“The Tele, SMH and Australian do not even seem to know that Western Sydney exists, let alone that most people in Sydney live there.”
Way, way OT, but this is absolutely spot on – in fact it is really noticeable to most Sydneysiders.
The Sydney newspapers seem to think the population centre of Sydney is the CBD – whereas it is actually near Parramatta. They really don’t know their market at all.
Roger,
“Rejection of the input means the output cannot be accepted”
I think this is the point the doubters have been trying to make.
Roger Jones said:
If you add the qualifier “given our current state of knowledge”, I don’t disagree with you. But our current state of knowledge is no great shakes. Check out climateprediction.net for a ton of very interesting simulation results showing the wide variability exhibited by the climate models.
Maybe so, if you stick to scientific conclusions. But the ratio of genuiine scientific discussion to static is exceedingly low.
And the vast majority of the static generators take their concept of liberty from Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Castro.
chrisl
that is so, but that point has nothing to do with the validity of the science when it describes a given unit of radiative forcing on the one hand and the impact response on the other.
There are two aspects being contested. One are the emission scenarios themselves and the other the CO2, climate change, impacts sequence.
There are two points the science can make: (1) with regard to the emission scenarios there is a risk of serious consequences at even relatively low emission levels and (2) the causal chain between radiative forcing and impacts is well enough understood to frame those risks.
If people wish to contest either of those, they are arguing with the science. The evidence from many of the comments on this blog is that a number of those contesting the science are clearly not across it, and are arguing on the basis of their world view.
Value judgements are best attached to questions such as “Are the impacts serious or not”, “Should they responded to and how?”. That is, when there is a risk, value judgements are attached to the assessment of the cosequences of that risk and to management options (including the choice of doing nothing).
Trying to raise the level of debate here (Says the billy-goat as it goes trip-trap trip-trap over the bridge).
Proust,
climateprediction.net is an exercise in parameter uncertainty and there are many combinations of those parameters that are implausible. It is not the be-all and end-all of climate modelling. It’s public so everyone can see it and shows the large scientific uncertainties that have to be dealt with. Brilliant.
When all the plausible outcomes are collated into risk assessments, with uncertainty analysis to assess the nature of the subjective priors being used, climate change still poses signficant risks.
All I know is that I live in a city of tens of thousands of people (Bendigo) that might run out of water about the end of next year.
Do I have to be a leftie, a right winger, a denialist or a greenie to get a drink? I don’t actually give jacksh*t whether it is carbon dioxide, natural variations in solar radiation or punishment from the deity of your choice, once the dams are empty, it won’t matter how many points you have scored off the stupid other side.
Roger
Is your billy-goat eating all the trolls ?(see above)
And allow another nursery rhyme analogy… Are climate modellers like the boy who cried wolf ?
I think you are setting an impossible task for yourselves given the complexity of world climate. Of course the basic science is well understood, but then to throw it all together and try and make a prediction is just building yourself up for a let down.
JQ,
I am sorry if any posting of my was percieved by you as meriting my being regarded as a troll.
I thank you for hosting an informative blog.
JQ:“In Australia, Market Focus International conducted 1007 interviews between 19 June and 6 July 2006. Interviews were conducted by telephone, the most cost-effective method available. The sample was designed to be nationally representative of all Australians of 18 years and over.�
Are we really expected to believe that MFI established “national representativeness” etc from its 1007 phone calls before it accepted their responses if any? My phone book gives no details on age sex income etc etc; how many calls did they make to establish a minimally acceptable quota sample?
Nope – just ask the irrigators upstream to stop exporting your drinking water in the form of cotton, for a tiny tiny fraction of what 95% of Australians are currently forced to pay for the stuff.
Next time your government asks you to pay more for your water, tell them to first do something about the irrigation waste.
JQ: ‘There’s ample evidence that a warming of 5 degrees C would be catastrophic. This is way outside the range of recent human experience. Even 5 degrees F would, as noted by James Hansen amount to a whole different planet.’
Not on my reading of St Hansen. 5C is not that much – I calculate it would not even make your Brisbane into Darwin, nor Darwin into say Jeddah, but even if it did people and livestock appear to survive even thrive in the latter of these places. So why catastrophic? Perhaps we would see a reverse flow from Brisbane to Melbourne, but there is as yet no sign of that – in fact the reverse? -despite the evident warming since around 1970.
On riffs…
Brad DeLong wrote a couple of days back:
“Max Sawicky has the best riff on Isaac Newton’s old line that I have ever heard. He says that those modeling the international economy assuming perfect capital mobility are “standing on the shoulders of men in ditches. Very deep ditches” “
Proust, how many cotton farmers do you think live upstream of Bendigo?
Of course, we need to get pricing right for irrigation (and also allow trade between urban and irrigation uses) but that’s scarcely an original point. I’ve been making it for the past twenty years. There’s been some progress during that time, but it’s slow going.
jquiggin, I was making a rhetorical point. Cotton farming in SE Queensland is just the most egregious example of irrigation insanity.
I never claimed it was. There are relatively few truly original points to be made, otherwise more of us would have Nobel prizes.
Which is why I suggest telling the government to stick their water price increases where the sun don’t shine. Nothing like mass civil disobedience to focus the bureaucratic mind.
proust: you’ve said numerous times that you don’t want your liberty infringed but there you are telling cotton farmers they should stop their “irrigation insanity”? What about our coal-fired pollution insanity? What’s that? We should only infringe on other people’s liberties?