While the consensus warns of gloom and doom, the WSJ points out that warming has its positive aspects as well. For example, Trees seem to be responding well to increased CO2. See: Forests in the Eastern United States are growing faster than they have in the past 225 years
The 1970’s worry of the “population bomb” may very well have been subdued by CO2 helping crop yields. WUWT readers may be familiar with Indur Goklany, a regular WUWT contributor. He figures significantly in this WSJ article.
From the Wall Street Journal:
It seems the U.N. IPCC only tabulates the benefits of climate change when they are outweighed by the costs.
By ANNE JOLIS
Could global warming actually be good for humanity? Certainly not, at least if we’re to believe the endless warnings of floods, droughts, and pestilences to which we are told climate change will inevitably give rise. But a closer look at the science tells a more complex story than unmitigated disaster. It also tell us something about the extent to which science has been manipulated to fit the preconceptions of warming alarmists.
According to a 2004 paper by British geographer and climatologist Nigel Arnell, global warming would likely reduce the world’s total number of people living in “water-stressed watersheds”—that is, areas with less than 1,000 cubic meters of water resources per capita, per year—even though many regions would see increased water shortages. Using multiple models, Mr. Arnell predicted that if temperatures rise, between 867 million and 4.5 billion people around the world could see increased “water stress” by 2085. But Mr. Arnell also found that “water stress” could decrease for between 1.7 billion and 6 billion people. Taking the average of the two ranges, that means that with global warming, nearly 2.7 billion people could see greater water shortages—but 3.85 billion could see fewer of them.
Mr. Arnell’s paper, funded by the U.K. government, was duly cited in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s supposedly authoritative 2007 assessment report. But the IPCC uses Mr. Arnell’s research to give the opposite impression, by a form of single-entry book-keeping. While it dutifully tallies the numbers of people he predicts will be left with less water access, it largely ignores the greater number likely to see more water courtesy of climate change.
The IPCC’s much-shorter “Summary for Policy Makers” is even more one-sided. It is riddled with warnings of warming-induced drought and—while acknowledging that a hotter Earth would bring “increased water availability” in some areas—warns that rising temperatures would leave “hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” Nowhere does it specify that even more people would probably have more water supplies.
The IPCC also neglects to mention Mr. Arnell’s baseline forecasts—that is, the number of people expected to experience greater “water stress” simply due to factors like population growth and resource use, regardless of what happens with temperatures. This leaves readers with the misleading impression that all, or nearly all, of the IPCC’s predicted “water stress” increases are attributable to climate change.
These omissions were no accident. In 2006, prior to the release of the IPCC’s report and the all-important policy makers’ summary, Indur Goklany—at the time with the U.S. Department of the Interior—alerted the summary’s authors that it was “disingenuous” to report on a warmer world’s newly “water-stressed” without mentioning that “as many, if not more, may no longer be water stressed (if Arnell’s analyses are to be trusted).” Mr. Goklany’s advice was dismissed.
Read the rest of the Article at the WSJ here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
R. Gates (12:02:01) :
So this will be the next tactic of the AGW deniers…”OK, well, even if the earth is warming…it could be a good thing…”
Earth 16,000 years BGW (Before Global Warming)
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/spaceart/earthicemap.jpg
Amazing warmth right now in the lower atmosphere up to about 46,000 ft. Especially take a look at 14,000 ft. global temps and compare to the historical data…the warmest February temps are 2010! (just as was the case with January)
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Get beyond the political mumbo jumbo on both sides and look that the data for yourself…
And by the way…the medieval warm period was warm, but not warmer than today GLOBALLY. The medieval warmth was primarily a N. Hemisphere phenomenon. It’s global temps over long periods that matter and make the climate in the first place. That’s why the global satellite data from the above referenced link are important…and 2010 still strongly on track to be the warmest global temps on record.
None of this matters, Prince Charles has made his decree, Deniers are liars.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/156294
Okay. R. Gates knows very well how to hijack a thread. His post was a finely crafted piece with a bit of name calling, some bait – his unfounded “natural variability” claim and arrogance (his fine objectivity). He also made sure not to mention the very things the WSJ article talks about. I think he’s a very experienced troll. Congrats, Gates! You’re a good manipulator, do you work in marketing? Or Human Resources?
Trolls aside, the WSJ points out a systematic failure in the IPCC AR4: Onesided reporting. It’s a simple technique, probably even Gates would be able to do it, but it might give the skeptics even more fodder. It will probably be very easy to find more examples of this in the AR4. And if an outlet like the WSJ is willing to publish it, we will have fun for weeks now…
In Australia we are told that AGW is bad as we are a dry continent and getting drier.
Maybe my communications to our ‘esteemed’ leaders should include the question “Which countries, that may benefit from more water resources, are you willing to deprive of this benefit so that Australia has more water?”.
Some nice phrasing here
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5745566/by-the-waters-of-denial-they-sit-and-weep.thtml
“By the waters of denial they sit and weep… (Melanie Phillips)
Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband issued a warning that recent controversies over scientific data must not be allowed to undermine efforts to tackle global warming. Mr Miliband said the evidence that man-made climate change was occurring was ‘overwhelming’ and was backed by the vast majority of scientists.
Miliband resembles one of those people who are discovered living in the jungle decades after the end of a war without realising it is all over. Someone should sit him down with a nice strong cup of hot sweet Fairtrade tea and a blanket over his shoulders, and embark him without delay upon a course of post-traumatic stress counselling. An awful lot of reputations are about to be reduced to, um, carbon – his included.”
AND
http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5749853/part_5/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml
“The global warming guerrillas
Matt Ridley salutes the bloggers who changed the climate debate. While most of Fleet Street kowtowed to the green lobby, online amateurs uncovered the spin and deception that finally cracked the consensus
For those few mainstream journalists who had always been sceptical — like Christopher Booker — it must be a strange experience, like being relieved after living behind enemy lines. Who knows, one day even BBC News may ask tough questions. But it was the bloggers who did the hard work.”
R. Gates (13:00:47) :
Wrong:
click1
click2
click3
Wise up before spouting off. You look ignorant. We don’t want that now, do we?
JohnH (13:04:27) : That’s a matter of genes:
“In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.“ – Prince Philip, in his foreword to ‘If I Were an Animal’
O/T but of interest I think – Guardian again
“Detectives question climate change scientist over email leaks”
“University of East Anglia scientist Paul Dennis denies leaking material, but links to climate change sceptics in US drew him to attention of the investigators”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacking-leaks
Spelling alert: the “its” in the lead sentence is possessive, not the contraction for “it is”
While the consensus warns of gloom and doom, the WSJ points out that warming has it’s positive aspects
[Thank’s. Fixed. ~dbs]
[snip]
Try again, without the multiple “deniers” labeling.
R. Gates (12:02:01): So this will be the next tactic of the AGW deniers
Dear R, excuse me for polishing my own apple, but I coined the slogan:
Warmer Is Better — Fight The Ice
four or five years ago. I’ve been called a kook, a flatearther, and every other name in the book, but now it turns out I WAS RIGHT ALL ALONG. Oh, the sweet justice of I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!!
Why is one-sided reporting an important and as yet nearly unexploited Achilles heel of the IPCC? Because their purpose is to inform policymakers, i.e. our honorable democratic governments (i don’t know if that applies to Gordon, he’s not been elected). To show the IPCC’s bias to the public might actually convince them to take a look at reality with their own lying eyes.
(Gates, give it up. *I* am objective, you’re *not*. The stratosphere is drying and the troposphere is not as hot as in the GCM’s. Get beyond the pointless trolling existence and look that[sic] the data for yourself…)
Anthony – you are mentioned in the Guardian article about Paul Dennis linked by Green Sand
Is Dennis the Climategate whistleblower?
He should be ennobled forthwith! Throw in the Congressional Medal of Honor as well.
REPLY: I have no idea who is behind the appearance of the zip file. – A
The US should stop giving the UN money to publish this BS.
The WSJ piece exposing the IPCC’s advocacy in the guise of science is just one more example in the growing list of reasons why the IPCC can no longer be considered as the ultimate authority in the usual AGW “appeal to authority” argument.
Back in mid November of 2009 the AGW supporters would counter any technical argument with an appeal to authority such as “but, but 2500 scientists agree”, or there is a consensus. Now the true believers in Global Warming like R Gates are left with examples of climate that are consistent with AGW, but prove nothing. This is progress; we are finally getting to a debate on the science.
Can we get back to discussing the experiment or observation designed to invalidate the hypothesis of AGW that caused it to be promoted to a theory. There was such an experiment right? How else could there ever have been a consensus.
“nearly 2.7 billion people could see greater water shortages—but 3.85 billion could see fewer of them”
and we have, what, 200-300 years, or more, to adjust to it?
I think I would rather try it the “natual” way, than to turn a bunch of whack-a-moles loose, to guess at fixing it right now, that don’t have a clue what they are doing and can’t even tell the truth.
If the science is so settled, why lie about it?
To WSJ: Treat this affaire as you treated “watergate”. This is a plain conspiricy of a few echoed by the many fools God provides and precarious education perfects.
R. Gates (13:00:47) :
The MWP does not exist only in graphs from the Hockey Stick Team. It’s all over history books and other records… so is the LIA by the way.
“If the Stick does not fit, you must quit.”
Good links, Smokey – the Loehle graph was unknown to me. Now maybe one should force the IPCC to print a side by side comparison of Loehle’s graph against Briffas graph (with and without the freak tree).
We could call this one-sided reporting again. Why not crack the IPCC open via use of the courts?
It transpires that the BBC and TERI were partners in pushing climate change propaganda in India. They also organised workshops to train environmental correspondents with particular emphasis on making climate change news worthy.
It’s the same blinkered mindset at work when weighing excess summer vs winter deaths (see WUWT 6th Jan, “Winter kills: Excess Deaths in the Winter Months”). More people are killed by cold than by heat, but it is the number of people dying during heat waves that is emphasised.
And it’s also the blinkered mindset at work when weighing the costs of adaptation to climate change vs the costs of CO2 mitigation (e.g., the Stern Report.)
Confirmation bias would be the most charitable interpretation of this tendency among the AGW proponents.
I see that Anthony and WUWT are smeared by the usual AGW tactics in the latest piece from the Guardian. The pro-AGW crowd almost never just talk about the facts.
On the one hand any criticism of AGW is derided as a ‘conspiracy theory.’ On the other hand every criticism of AGW is part of a conspiracy .
See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacker-police-investigation
R. Gates…..And because it is in your opinion that because it is in your estimation beyond the natural variability that the cause is…..???? Please, wait, don’t tell me, I know, …..all my fault and we’re all going to die and we should all donate to the church of AGW and pay penance for our sins.
But, way to turn on an issue and use what we’ve been told never to use. Just because a month is warmer doesn’t mean it is reflective of our climate or a trend in our climate. Especially in one hemi-sphere. What you are seeing is probably just primarily a lower hemi-sphere phenomenon. You can go here to see that it is. http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
BTW, it is not new that people question whether or not warming could be good or bad. It has been an argument since the issue arose. And, no one has persuasively made a case that we will be worse off with a warmer planet. I hold that we will be better off.(As history indicates.)
Cheers.
I like your third link Smokey, as it ties nicely together research all over the globe in one page.
It still amazes me that people come out with statement like – the MWP wasn’t global, or it wasn’t as warm as today, despite research going back 40 years. That’s 800 individual scientists, co-authoring papers using a diverse array of proxies including oxygen isotopes, tree lines, ice cores and sediments. And this research supports historical and archeological records.
There is absolutely no doubt that the MWP was real, global, and at least as warm as today. For the MWP to be local or regional would require some sort of warm anomaly to be held in place, not just for months, but hundreds of years. There is no known mechanism that could keep temperatures from equalising.
To deny such overwhelming evidence is just willfull propagandizing or a sign of woefull ignorance.