John Fund of National Review Online details the latest strategy from climate change zealots.
Rather than forecast an environmental apocalypse, an attempt is being made to convince us that climate change would reduce future global income by about 19 percent over the next quarter century compared with a hypothetical non-warming world. The financial losses by the year 2100 could be double that. It won’t surprise you that the poorest people on the planet and those least responsible for carbon emissions would suffer the most.
The study was released in the journal Nature by modelers at Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. …
… Such “measurements” are all preposterous; nonsense on stilts. Marshall Burke, a Stanford University climate economist who wrote a 2015 paper predicting a dramatic loss of global income because of climate change, told the Associated Press that he thinks the study is “basically right.” Nonetheless, even he admitted: “I wouldn’t put a ton of weight on their specific numerical estimates.”
It’s become obvious to climate-modelers that their apocalyptic predictions of doom haven’t moved most people or even policy-makers into panic mode. So they are now switching gears and using the language of cost–benefit analysis to sound like economists pitching drastic climate regulation as a good business model.
What this is really doing is dragging economic analysis down to the level of throwing darts at a target. No wonder the Chinese and Indians, the world’s biggest carbon-emitters, quietly snicker at Western statisticians.
Have you ever wondered where all the scary models that warn that we are close to the “tipping point” come from?
Roger Pielke Jr., a former director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder, has diligently dug into their origins with the fascinating story of the few billionaires behind what he calls “an extraordinary corruption of the true scientific process.”
