Canadian Contretemps

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Driving home today, I heard about a new report from one of those Canadian “we work for the Government but we’re actually really truly independent, honest we are” kind of organizations. It’s called “PAYING THE PRICE: THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE FOR CANADA.” It is chock full of the usual nonsense about how, in a country plagued by cold Arctic winds and suffering from a short growing season, a couple degrees of warming will be a multi-billion dollar national tragedy. It featured the usual huge numbers, warming will cost multiple tens of billions of dollars per year. (Curiously, there is no mention of any billions in supposed costs from the 20th century warming.)

I got to wondering about how they estimated these huge costs. I mean, were they based on scientific studies, or from actuarial data, or were they estimated from past damages, or were they just extracting the numbers from their fundamental orifices?

The answer, I found out, is “none of the above”. Once again, it’s models all the way down. In this case, it’s a whiz-bang model called Page09. Here’s their diagram of how it all works, from page 37 of the cited report.

Figure 1. Description from the climate report of the model used to estimate the damages from warming temperatures.

Damage functions? I like the sound of that, I never heard of a “damage function”, but then I was born yesterday. So I set out to understand the Page09 damage functions.

In my research I find this:

Within the PAGE09 Model, damage from climate change is modelled firstly as combination of specified damage functions for sea level rise, economic effects and non-economic effects.

In this reference they give the general form of the damage function. I have spread out the right side of the equation to show the two different parts.

Climate change economic and non-economic impacts before adaptation are captured as a proportion of GDP by the climate change damage function. As do all the other main IAMs with the exception of MERGE, damage is defined as a non-linear function (Bosello and Roson, 2007). Welfare impacts (WI) are expressed as a polynomial function of the difference between regional and tolerable temperature levels (RTT) as follows:

WI(t, d, r) = [RTT(t, d, r) / 2,5 ^POW ]        *         W(d, 0) *[WF(r)/100] * GDP(t, r)

where t corresponds to time, d identifies the damage type (economic, non-economic, sea level rise) and r the region; 2.5 are the °C corresponding to the tolerable increase in temperature due to global warming; POW is the power of the polynomial impact function; W(d, 0) is the impact in the focus region (i.e. EU) at 2.5 °C and WF(r) is the regional weight applied to EU impact to calculate the impact in other world regions. SOURCE

Let me give a stab at translating that into English. First, the left hand side in brackets says take the amount by which the region is warmer than the tolerable range RTT(t,d,r) . Divide that by 2.5, and take that to some power POW. That gives you the damage impact index.

Second, the right hand side just adjusts the damage index calculated on the left hand side, to convert the impact into a dollar value. The important thing to note is that for a given damage type and region, the right hand side is a constant, that is to say it does not vary with T. All the work is done by the left-hand side.

Another reference gives the exact same equation for the damage function, with different symbols:

1.3.2 Model adjustments

At the core of the damage function in PAGE09 is the Equation (5).14

d = alpha * (TACT/TCAL) ^ beta

where d is the damage, alpha is the damage at the calibration temperature, TCAL is the calibration temperature rise, and TACT is the actual temperature rise, beta is the damage exponent.

The calibration temperature is on average 3°C. Therefore, if the actual temperature rise is 3 °C, on average, the damage equals alpha. The damage exponent, beta, becomes more important as temperatures rise above TCAL. In the standard model, beta is entered as triangle (1.5, 2, 3). Therefore, on average, the exponent is 2.167 (slightly above a quadratic), meaning that at twice the calibration temperature (on average, TACT equals 6°C), the damage will be 4.5 times alpha. SOURCE

The damage function graphs out as shown in Figure 2, for various values of the power coefficient POW (also called “beta”) and RTT(t, d, r) (also called “TACT”).

Figure 2. The form of the damage function for the triangular number POW = {1.5, 2, 3}. Note that for a 5° rise the maximum curve (POW = 3) forecasts eight times the damage.

This shows that in all cases used in, damage rises faster than temperature.

There are some odd parts of using this form of a damage function.

First, the one that rises the fastest with increasing warming (POW = 3, green line) starts out the slowest. What would be the physical reason for that?

Second, it assumes that human beings don’t learn. Sure, if there is one year of warmer weather, some farmers will lose money from planting the wrong thing, or at the wrong time. But if the warmer weather continues, the farmers will plant earlier and rejoice that the growing season is longer.

There is also another problem with this kind of analysis. In addition to assuming that farmers are stupid and that damage goes up geometrically as temperatures rise, there is no provision for the benefits of the warming. They pay lip service to the idea of benefits in the report, but I see no serious understanding of the difference between the costs and the benefits of warming for Canada. One difference is that the costs are often short-term (adjustment costs), while the benefits of the warmer climate are often longer lasting.

Again, farming is a good example. The costs to farming of a warming are short-lived. For a few years the farmers would plant something that might not be optimum for the new, warmer climate. But after that, the longer growing season is a benefit forever … how can they not include things like that?

Around the latitude of Canada, the change in average temperature as one goes north is on the order of 2.5° (where damage = 1) for every couple hundred miles. So if you took a Canadian farm and moved it two hundred miles south, do you seriously think that the farmers would suffer huge problems?

The same thing is true of the forests. They claim there will be huge damage to the forests from a few degrees temperature rise … but for many forests in Canada, the same forest exists two hundred miles to the south of a given point … and two hundred miles to the north of that point. That’s a change of FIVE DEGREES, OMG, THE SOUTHERN TREES MUST BE BURNING UP, THEY ARE FIVE DEGREES WARMER THAN THE NORTHERN TREES, COULD BE EIGHT TIMES THE DAMAGE …

I fear I can’t appropriately express my contempt for this kind of grade-school level of thinking about damage impact. If that’s the best a bunch of “damage analysts” can come up with, I’d fire them on the spot.

Always learning, I find out that this family of models are called “IAMS”, for Impact Assessment Models. The most trenchant comment I have found about them comes from the first source cited above, which says (emphasis mine):

An interesting challenge to the methodology of IAMs comes from a series of papers from Weitzman (2009a, 2009b, 2009c). In these papers, he puts forward a number of critiques of the current cost-benefit analysis of climate change, especially the approach embodied in IAMs.

Weitzman’s observations go even further with the elaboration of what is referred to as the ‘dismal theorem’. The idea is basically that under certain conditions, the expected loss from high-consequence, low-probability events can be infinite. In such a situation, standard cost-benefit analysis is therefore no longer an appropriate tool. Weitzman argues that, given the extent of our current understanding, these conditions apply to climate change.

Taking this idea to its limit would suggest that IAMs have little relevance for policy, as the response ought always to be to choose policies that do everything possible to avoid an infinite loss, even if there is only a small probability of such an outcome.

This “dismal theorem” is an extremely important conclusion, and is applicable to a host of the modeling exercises involved with thermal doomsday scenarios.

So Canadians, when they throw this high-cost, low-value modeling exercise in your face, you can just say “Sorry, go hawk your model results somewhere else. IAMS have little relevance for policy”.

Finally, as a businessman, I’ve done a host of cost-benefit studies. I have no problem with a proper historically based cost-benefit analysis of some possible future occurrence or action. However, the “PAYING THE PRICE …” report is nothing of the sort.

My condolences to my northern neighbors, who have their own Kyoto crosses to bear …

w.

PS — The climate models say that the maximum effect of the putative warming will be seen in the extra-tropical winter nights. Is this a problem? I mean, I don’t hear a lot of Canadians saying “Dang, it’s getting way too warm after midnight in February” …

PPS — my favorite argument is that the problem is not the absolute temperature change, it is the speed of the temperature change that is claimed will cause the problems. Yeah, at the much-hyped theoretical future rate of 0.03 degrees of warming per year, watch out when you step on board. If you’re not ready for it, the G forces from suddenly taking on that magnitude of high-speed warming can cause whiplash …

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
kim

If statism hadn’t penetrated Canada to the extent of sending a copy of the Piltdown Mann’s Crooked Hockey Stick to every Canadian household, where would we be?
==============

Doug Proctor

Good comment on temperature rise effects not having observational input. Would not the mid-central-north US that has a wheat-corn agriculture be a proxy for the southern Saskatchewan? Southern Alberta for northern Arizona, maybe the Magullen(sp?) Plateau? Could you not plop examples in from north and south and see what happens?
And how about the reverse? Make central-north US match central Saskatchewan, and see what happens to the “damage”? Should not northern Arizona become MORE liveable, like the Garden of Eden is a cold place irrespective of moisture and sunshine?

Brent Matich

You mean no more -40 C nights? We can get -39.97 C next year and -39.94 C after that! I might not be able to adapt.
“Let’s get Tropical! ” – Jackie Moon
Brent in Calgary

kim;)

“The same thing is true of the forests. They claim [ their ] will be huge damage to the forests from a few degrees temperature rise …
There?
Thanks for this post 🙂
[REPLY: Thanks, fixed. — .w]

Steve from rockwood

Another dismal theorem to explain global warming. The only conclusion is that Canadians are as gullible as Americans who are as gullible as Australians who are…

Latitude

oh noes……where have we seen that graph before

Andrew30

Steve from rockwood says: October 1, 2011 at 5:59 pm
[Another dismal theorem to explain global warming. The only conclusion is that Canadians are as gullible as Americans who are as gullible as Australians who are…]
Nope, just the people that publish this nonsense. The voters however are not information publishers, as for the non-Canadian voters, we shall see.
See also:
“Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.”
“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.”
“Carbon dioxide which is a naturally occurring gas vital to the life cycles of this planet”
“This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa, but ordinary Canadians from coast to coast will not put up with what this will do to their economy and lifestyle”
“We can debate whether or not… CO₂ does or does not contribute to global warming. I think the jury is out.”
“My party’s position on the Kyoto Protocol is clear and has been for a long time. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so”
“As economic policy, the Kyoto Accord is a disaster. As environmental policy it is a fraud”
Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada.

Scott Brim

Willis, is it possible that warmer temperatures might accelerate the rate at which Canada’s steel bridges corrode, possibly leading to a series of catastrophic bridge collapses which will ultimately be linked to the mining of tar sands in Alberta?

Steve from rockwood

In figure 2 the damage impact amount has no units. It could be 9% of nothing.

Bill Illis

If any country is to be the least impacted by global warming, it is Canada. I mean really, -40C winters will be warmer. Agriculture has a longer growing season. More water vapour means more rain. Plants (and forestry trees) grow better with higher CO2 and more rainfall. Heating costs will lower. Snow removal costs will be lower. Winter tire costs will be lower.
The 2.0% of GDP cost should be balanced off with at least a 30% GDP gain.
Nobody in Canada will lose sleep over this report.

Thank you Willis – crystal clear as always.
A simple model for climate hysteria:
Climate Hysteria = Politician’s need for taxes / Scientific honesty
The forecast for climate hysteria is: escalation. Politicians need the taxes to soothe their sponsors, and climatologists (and their apologists) are tending toward zero honesty.

These conclusions are always like this. Someone makes a spreadsheet with some formulas in it and reads off the bottom line in a press release. $x in damage from global warming, Y lives lost due to salt on popcorn, Z number of jobs “created or saved”
There are dozens or hundreds of assumptions built into the spreadsheets. Most turn out to be incorrect to some degree. The conclusions tend to be self-serving nonsense.
I’m not sure how this kind of thing got to be called “science”. It’s sad.

Robert

I cringed when I heard this garbage on CBC. It’s just more desperation by the “research” crowd trying to frighten people and ensure more money for “studies”. It’s pretty pathetic. Sure the climate has warmed a bit over the past 150 or so years- so what’s the big deal? Nothing catastrophic going on. We Canadians could use a bit more warming thank you very much!

Ted

Hey Willis, before you go off on our northern neighbors, maybe you want to first fix your climate sensitivity mistake on your previous post? Kinda getting ahead of yourself…

Doug in Seattle

Curiously, there is no mention of any billions in supposed costs from the 20th century warming.

I think Willis is on to something here.

BarryW

Ah, but what about the ice roads?

You rock Willis again very clear so even someone with a lowly high school diploma can understand it…….to bad those in charge have college degrees and egos to match the amount they paid for those degrees.

David Falkner

Hmmmm…. What happens in these models when the same magnitude of temperature change occurs with the opposite sign?

Dave

Will.
I live in Vancouver BC (Home of the living high alarmist David Sazuki) I am a news hound, only the CBC TV news ( Socialist media supported by our TAX money to the tune of $1.2 Billion) and a small blurb in the Vancouver Sun. Both seem to salivate at every doom and gloom Climate study/ hoax the rest of our media left it alone as did most of the Canadian public.

Ian L. McQueen

kim says:
October 1, 2011 at 5:39 pm
If statism hadn’t penetrated Canada to the extent of sending a copy of the Piltdown Mann’s Crooked Hockey Stick to every Canadian household, where would we be?
==============
Kim:
I don’t suppose that you still have your copy, do you? I would like to replace my discarded copy.
IanM

I agree with you Robert. We Canadians could use a lot more warming. It is Oct 1st and we have a frost warning tonight with the possiblity of snow tonight and tomorrow. I am an hour north of Toronto. If it snows, it will be the earliest snow in the 24 years I have lived here. What really scares me about articles like this one, is that the average person believes it. It’s like living in the movie “The Body Snatchers” Every one says we have to save the environment. Save it from what? I have been living in the same place for 24 years and the only change is that the vegetation is lusher.

Willis Eschenbach

Steve from rockwood says:
October 1, 2011 at 6:21 pm

In figure 2 the damage impact amount has no units. It could be 9% of nothing.

You are correct, Steve, it is a dimensionless index. When multiplied times the right side of the first equation, it comes out in dollars.
w.

Oh my god!
Imagine if Canada got if few degrees warmer. Then imagine if a country like Congo or Indonesia got a few degrees colder. That would be terrible.
BTW is this garbage peer-reviewed?

Steve Oregon

Every bit of this is make work BS. It’s job security and with the forecast of calamity many more bureaucrats are needed to monitor, prepare, plan and report on what must be done to address everything they can dream up.
It’s becomes parasitic and unstoppable.
Yes, we’ve crossed the tipping point of more planners & other bureaucrats than mankind can handle. They are unleashed and producing an ever increasing magnitude of crap than will ever have any use what so ever. And all of it must be reported, filed, tracked, advanced, expanded and repeatedly revised. Because we need to know what to do.

Willis Eschenbach

Ted says:
October 1, 2011 at 6:41 pm

Hey Willis, before you go off on our northern neighbors, maybe you want to first fix your climate sensitivity mistake on your previous post? Kinda getting ahead of yourself…

Part of the time people say I should write about something else. Part of the time they don’t like my style, or my choice of words. Part of the time they say I write something too soon or too late.
Ted, I do not write to your schedule. I write to mine. I get to things when I get to them. I write about what interests me at any given instant.
Get used to it, I don’t plan to change. If you want things written per your desires and to your schedule … write them yourself. That’s what I do.
w.

Willis Eschenbach

David Falkner says:
October 1, 2011 at 7:00 pm

Hmmmm…. What happens in these models when the same magnitude of temperature change occurs with the opposite sign?

I thought about that too. But the equations don’t work for negative temperatures, so their vaunted method simply fails.
But in any case, everyone knows that we won’t see any more winters, because snow is a thing of the past …
w.

The climatic bump that came in the early 1300s – and was accompanied by famine, disease, Hundred Years War, Black Death – had a cost. Of course, that was a cooling. There are serious academics who suggest that it was due to humans overheating the planet in the boom of the Medieval Warming period, making the Warming too warm, causing the Gulf Stream to shut down, causing a great cooling, causing…
Well, when I say they are serious academics, you know what I mean.

Willis Eschenbach

Willis Eschenbach says:
October 1, 2011 at 7:23 pm

Ted says:
October 1, 2011 at 6:41 pm
Hey Willis, before you go off on our northern neighbors, maybe you want to first fix your climate sensitivity mistake on your previous post? Kinda getting ahead of yourself…

OK, Ted. Per your request, I have now gone to my previous post and fixed your climate sensitivity mistake.
w.

Wil

Lol Willis – we had great fun with this garbage when it appeared on CBC – you know that CBC that features that love bunny David Suzuki as their “star” broadcaster. Well, what do you expect from a far left wing taxpayer 100% funded black hole? And as you well know human physics breaks down at a black hole – surprise, we can’t make sense of an internal black hole – well, same with the CBC.
Its sorts like your crazy uncle that that claims he was abducted by aliens – or perhaps like NASA’s alien invasion because of Global Warming. Granted, perfect for the average CBC listener with a grade three diploma signifying his/her highest level of education. Makers sense to them. You do know, Willis, no one was ever intended to look at the actual facts, don’t you?
However, for anyone about a grade 3 level then the theory seems to suffer a tad – mostly from a complete lack of human intelligence.

Willis Eschenbach

Per Strandberg says:
October 1, 2011 at 7:18 pm

Oh my god!
Imagine if Canada got if few degrees warmer. Then imagine if a country like Congo or Indonesia got a few degrees colder. That would be terrible.
BTW is this garbage peer-reviewed?

Not peer-reviewed in the slightest. If it were, the Canadian Government might not have had to pay big bucks to the charming if delusionary folks who wrote it.
w.

Re Kim and Willis,
I have seen a plausible case for significant damage caused by warming of the coldest nights of winter. The Mountain Pine Beetle is killing the White Pine (and Aspen?). Global Warming is being blamed because a couple of nights of minus 50 deg F in necessary to kill off the larve

“Every winter would have cold snaps of 50 below, which wiped out any bugs inside the trunks. But now it only drops to 20 below, max, and beetles can easily live through that — their larvae produce a kind of antifreeze that protects them to 30 below.”
http://www.mensjournal.com/the-ghost-park/3

So, a damage function can be justified that takes the rise of minimum temperatures into account. However, anyone using such a function must simultaneously accept that such a function is highly non-linear, with a negative second derivative wrt temp: Massive damage if min Temp changes from -55 to -40, Not much additional damage for higher temps. Concave downward.

Wil

Dave
You have my deepest sympathy, Dave, in Vancouver. Its not easy living on the same rock as David Suzuki, but to live in the same province? At least we, Alberta, have the oil sands to drive Suzuki insane –

Dave says:
October 1, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Will.
I live in Vancouver BC (Home of the living high alarmist David Sazuki) I am a news hound, only the CBC TV news ( Socialist media supported by our TAX money to the tune of $1.2 Billion) and a small blurb in the Vancouver Sun. Both seem to salivate at every doom and gloom Climate study/ hoax the rest of our media left it alone as did most of the Canadian public.
=======================================
I first heard of this report from Global TV news, and they put a link to this report on their web site.
I considered if I should bother downloading and reading this report, but reading junk science doesn`t seem to be a good use of my time.
Thanks Willis for noticing and researching this report, so I didn`t have to. 🙂

Steve Oregon says:
October 1, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Every bit of this is make work BS. It’s job security and with the forecast of calamity many more bureaucrats are needed to monitor, prepare, plan and report on what must be done to address everything they can dream up.
It’s becomes parasitic and unstoppable.
Yes, we’ve crossed the tipping point of more planners & other bureaucrats than mankind can handle…..
—————-
Agreed 1000%. And it’s happening everywhere.
Willis, great post! Toronto has a nasty UHI effect which makes summer nights very uncomfortable, but most Canadians in their heart of hearts have fantasies in line with Minnesotans for Global Warming. And because the warmists tell us that more global warming means more snow and more severe winters (because of more moisture etc. etc.) even the die-hard ski fanatics can agree!

Ted

“OK, Ted. Per your request, I have now gone to my previous post and fixed your climate sensitivity mistake.”
And I yours….

HaroldW

I’m particularly fond of footnote 11, which refers to the authors’ modification (from the previous model) of the distribution of parameters including the one they call “transient climate response”. The authors extend the distribution — in the direction of greater climate sensitivity — and the new upper bound “has been arbitrarily chosen as three times bigger than the original one.” The rationale appears to be related to a previous statement “[t]he existence of an upper limit does drastically reduce the possibility of the occurrence of catastrophic events.”
It’s all about producing a “fat tail” in the probability distribution of damages, by including large powers (beta) and by increasing the probability of large temperature increases. I don’t see any justification for the assertion that damage should increase quadratically or higher. And I note that the authors’ model claims that there is a 5% chance that the temperature sensitivity is above 10 deg C. Given that we’ve seen perhaps a 0.5 deg C increase with half a doubling of CO2 (so far), there’s no case to be made for such a high value as 10 deg C. The authors quote Weitzman that these are “wildly-uncertain unbelievably-crude ballpark estimates” and then go ahead to compute expected values to three significant digits. But more fundamentally, there is a complete lack of consideration of observation-based constraints.

PS — The climate models say that the maximum effect of the putative warming will be seen in the extra-tropical winter nights. Is this a problem? I mean, I don’t hear a lot of Canadians saying “Dang, it’s getting way too warm after midnight in February” …

Willis Willis Willis. *sigh*. Of course you won’t hear a resident of Canadia say such a thing. They would, of course, say “Dang, it’s getting way too warm after midnight in February, eh?”
p.s. Yes they do all say it. Even my buddy, an Oz transplant in Canadia, now says “eh” all the time.

kim;) says:
October 1, 2011 at 5:51 pm
“The same thing is true of the forests. They claim [ their ] will be huge damage to the forests from a few degrees temperature rise …
There?
Thanks for this post 🙂
[REPLY: Thanks, fixed. — .w]

Hmm, when I point out a grammatical error, I’m labeled as “Pedantic Man”.

Clive

Willis
(A bit rambling..)
Thanks once again, Although, I’ve not read your analysis, I am sure it is spot on. I heard the CBC (?) news report the other day .. something like, “Damages of $5 billion annual from increased floods and fires.” And my lopsided left-sided brain immediately thinks:
1) That’s about $150 per person. I suspect that I already pay more than that in subsidizing “alternative” energy sources like wind and biomass because they get a $0.06/kwh subsidy for their silly efforts and I pay for that every time I pay my electrical bill. PLUS I get to pay for the grid in hidden “administrative” charges on my electrical bill. In Alberta we all pay for the new wind farm transmission lines in these hidden charges. The wind farm investors don’t pay for these transmission systems. The public pays for the transmission systems in the admin fees on their bill every month.
2) Those increased flood and fire costs are because (in part) folks want to live in upscale communities built:
a) inside dry forests in BC and
b) on flood plains. (Lordy, the concept of “flood plain” cannot be that difficult to understand, eh? ☺)
Some houses just south of Calgary (in High River I think) were recently flooded or at least threatened for the third time in the past five (?) years. Apparently, the insurance companies are balking. And rightfully so. We all pay for replacing houses flooded in “flood plains” when we pay our insurance premiums.
So I get to pay two or three times for this nonsense: increased taxes, increased utility fees and insurance rates. And it is (of course) all for nothing as far as the climate is concerned.
Ironically idiot politicians who slobber all over “climate change” and “we must do something” are the ones who approve building permits in forests and flood planes. Big disconnect.
Thanks again!
Clive

Christian Bultmann

Tourism Canada did find a silver lining from global warming 🙂

artwest

Scott Brim says:
Willis, is it possible that warmer temperatures might accelerate the rate at which Canada’s steel bridges corrode, possibly leading to a series of catastrophic bridge collapses…?
——————
I can’t talk about Canada but in the UK the last few colder winters have reminded us of the ruinous cost for the repair of infrastructure from damage caused by ice and snow. Many roads are still pot-holed from last winter and, given that many bridges here are partly or wholly made of stone, brick or concrete, I can see repair costs for those rising as the cold continues.

Joe Prins

Willis, thanks for the fun stuff. If the formula does not work with negatives, ie, it gets a tad cooler here in Alberta, how does that jive with the title of this momentous earthshaking report?
Seems to me that a few degrees cooler on average for the next 10-15-20 years would shorten the growing season and have far more severe economic consequences than a few degrees warmer.
And I pay taxes to pay for this drivel? Hope Harper does not waste his majority in parliament like Mulroney did.

P.G. Sharrow

Willis Eschenbach
“I fear I can’t appropriately express my contempt for this kind of grade-school level of thinking about damage impact.”
It takes a collage degree to dream up something this insane. Grade schoolers are not this bad at logic.
I have spent most of my 65 years farming in short growing season areas. Any warming is only positive. Enough warming will allow for growing more valuable crops and makes livestock production more cost effective. pg

Environment Canada plans to restrict carbon dioxide from coal-fired electric generation plants at a cost to Canadians of $8.2 billion.
On behalf of the Friends of Science Society, yesterday I submitted our response to the proposed regulations. We present strong evidence that the climate sensitivity of CO2 emission is one-sixth of the IPCC estimate. We show that a small warming effect of greenhouse gas emissions, about 0.5 C in 200 years, cause a social benefit, rather than a social cost. CO2 emissions also increase crop yields.
The submission is published on our website at http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=545

jorgekafkazar

The heartbreak of proctocraniosis.

alaric

Great analysis, thank you.
To Doug Proctor, we down here is AZ just call it the Mogollon Rim, great place to go camping.
alaric

Skeptic

What a load of road apples. But then what can you expect from the country that blessed the world with the likes of Maurice Strong, David Suzuki and Andrew Weaver. I wonder how many members of this illustrious panel are members of WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, etc..

Michael Wassil

When I saw that headline in the National Post I said to myself: “Fools.”
I suspect my reaction was typical; we know enough to file this where it belongs. The problem is the fools still control a lot of stuff they should never have been allowed near. We’re working on that, too.
Michael Wassil (North Vancouver, Canada)

noaaprogrammer

Lefty ‘scientists,’ ‘mathematicians,’ ‘computer programmers,’ etc., are mathematically challenged. They obviously don’t even know how to model their wrong ideas using differential equations.