The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has come out with its latest scary report (its sixth
) predicting all manner of catastrophe if we don't immediately reduce Carbon dioxide emissions, while dissing nuclear power as "not relevant " in the mix. Huh? This strikes me a just this side of insane. Correction, the other side of insane.
The media have reported it breathlessly, urging alarm. Yet delving into the report, the only real difference from the Fifth is that the warming by 2 degrees C, is now predicted to come a bit later than then predicted. In other words, the only substantial part of the report is actually, pace
the press, good news, though you'd never know that from the media coverage.
Moreover, to the extent that there are dire predictions in the Sixth, they are made with only "medium confidence", which is set at 50/50, or a toss of the coin. A toss of the coin that an increasing number of insects and some animals may find less habitat, for example.
But for the IPCC this is calamity staring us in the face. Despite which they dismiss the single quickest, most secure and safest way to achieve a significant reduction in carbon dioxide output, namely nuclear.
They diss nuke for three reasons: 1. It can lead to proliferation 2. It's polluting, especially to water and 3. It's hard to get rid of waste.
But what's the consensus on each of these three question? Are they really problems?
The answers are: No, No and No. It's pretty much as simple as that. None of these is a problem. None.
Meantime, the latest Nobel laureate, the climate economist William Nordhaus, says that costs and benefits of any anti-CO2 policies need to be measured. Only if the cost of doing nothing is greater than the cost of doing something should something be done. That number is at around 2 degrees C of warming.
Yet greenies are parading both the IPCC report and Nordhaus' Nobel as if they're both saying the same thing: we need urgent -- urgent -- Carbon reduction measures, up to and including the destruction of capitalism. Just as greenies have already ruined the planet
and have caused climate change.
Clearly this report is agenda-driven, not driven by any proper assessment of carbon abatement policies.
Bjon Lomborg, of the Copenhagen Consensus think tank, makes the case in more detail in the WSJ
Below the fold is the full article.