h/t to WUWT reader Pat. We are witnessing the crumbling of the consensus mindset. Stern looked like a deer in headlights.
Nicholas Stern is challenged by ABC’s Tony Jones on China/coal/renewables propaganda, and comes out looking very foolish indeed. The Richard Tol stuff is predictable:
VIDEO/TRANSCRIPT: 27 March: ABC Lateline: Back tracking on carbon pricing will damage Australia
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: We were joined just a short time ago from London by Lord Nicholas Stern who headed the review on the economics of climate change published in 2006.
He was also the principal adviser to the British Government on the economics of climate change and development from 2005 through to 2007.
Lord Stern is now chairman of the Grantham research institute at the London School of Economics. Nicholas Stern, thanks for joining us.
…
NICHOLAS STERN: What China is doing is growing rapidly and trying to reduce the fraction of coal in its energy portfolio and it’s succeeding in doing that.
TONY JONES: Sorry, can I interrupt you there. Do you know what it is at the moment? I found it hard to actually find details of this. What is the percentage of power produced by coal?
NICHOLAS STERN: I think it’s around – you’ll have to check this Tony but I think it’s just below 60 per cent coming down from considerably above 60 per cent.
Don’t hold me on those numbers. All I can tell you is that it’s coming down pretty rapidly in China as a result of direct policy and notwithstanding a likely doubling of the economy in 10 years, that they aim, during that period, to find a peak in coal and then bring it on down thereafter…
***TONY JONES: Finally, as scientists meet in Japan to thrash out the final wording on the IPCC’s next assessment report on the impact of climate change, British economist Professor Richard Toll who was one of the lead authors, has asked for his name to be taken off the document, claiming it’s alarmist and has been changed from talking, as he says, about manageable risk to the four horsemen of the apocalypse. How much damage will his departure do to the credibility of the final report?
NICHOLAS STERN: Not much. He’s always been somebody who as argued that the damages from climate change are there but very small. He’s an outlier really and I think his departure won’t make much difference.
***TONY JONES: Do you think it’s been orchestrated in some way? Is that what you’re suggesting?
NICHOLAS STERN: I don’t know whether it’s orchestrated or not. He’s making his own statements and he’s entitled to do that but I think he’s seen as a bit of an outlier in terms of someone who thinks the damages are much smaller than the rest of us fear and this is risk management, Tony.
You have to be very, very confident that the risks are going to be very small because the science tells us the risks could be very big and it is irreversibility here, as the concentrations in the atmosphere ratchet up, the high-carbon capital and infrastructure gets locked in. Delay is very dangerous so one person saying he thinks the risks might be very small is a very marginal part of the argument because most of the science is telling us that the risks are very big and with the irreversibility that we see in this, any kind of common sense or risk analysis says we should act strongly…
Video and transcript here:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s3973198.htm
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Pretty sympathetic interviewer, is Aussie TV like that throughout?
But I wonder how your average Aussie (and Canadian) takes to being lectured to (and slighly threatened) by a Brit. Watching that made me feel like we have a world govt telling unruly nations to behave themselves, for the good of the planet.
First, hats off to Dr. Richard Tol for his integrity and courage.
(respectful moment of silence)
Isn’t it interesting the way Stern spins China? They are reducing the fraction of coal in their energy portfolio huh. That’s a lovely and probably true statement, and yet it’s utterly misleading. They are ramping up coal use like mad.
Stern is just playing games. Even the guys at Climate Central will (more or less) give you the truth on this without too much spin here.
The most honest thing he said about it was this:
They aren’t going to reduce coal use by diddle squat for the next decade and they make no bones about it. They already consume almost as much coal by themselves as the rest of the world combined.
Nick Stern came off looking and sounding a fool. He just returned from China, he claimed, but couldn’t tell us anything about what he actually witnessed. I live in Asia and not one government supports a price on carbon. And Australia knows this and in order to remain competitive, must do away with a tax which will do nothing about raising or lowering temperatures. Nick – get a life.
“China is continuing hell for leather for coal, opening new coal fired stations every month! 79% of electricity is generated by coal. Wind power is an infinitesimally small proportion of the energy used in China. Remember China has one fifth of the world’s population.Even if China’s “other renewables” sector increased tenfold it would still only be 3% of the total! Hard sums, eh?”
Nothing like a pack of lies to incite the mob, eh? China’s use of coal has slowed to less than a third of what it was increasing during the 2004-2010 period. Every year China adds additional power capacity equal to all of Britain and will continue to do so for decades. Coal has dropped in importance and is now 66% and will be 44% by 2030, the same as the U.S. It was but a few years ago that the U.S. energy production was over 53% coal powered. Hydro stands at 17% and will increase faster than coal. China is now the leading importer of LNG, which will also grow in importance. China is interested in reducing smog/air pollution, not CO2. Nuclear is the other big future player. Half of the nuclear plants currently under construction are in China – 28. Yesterday
a new reactor was connected to the grid and about one new reactor every two months will go into production for the next several years. China will surpass the U.S. fleet by 2030 and has plans for 500 by mid- century and 1600 by the end of the century.
Larry says:
March 28, 2014 at 6:47 am
Nick Stern came off looking and sounding a fool.
“It is better to sit and thought of as the fool than to open ones mouth and leave no doubt”
-A. Lincoln
Exactly what I thought of his comments too
My risk of getting cancer someday could be very big. So I should start chemo and radiation therapy right away.
Stern: “…the science tells us the risks could be very big”
Does real science do ‘could’?
William:
When logic and reason is removed from the analysis, the analysis is no longer ‘research’ but rather the production of flexible propaganda to push an agenda. The fact that there is obviously unfettered economic climategate in each IPCC report is a pathetic consequence when ‘research’ becomes political propaganda. The other part of the ruse is underestimating the cost and benefits of the green scams. The developed countries have spent trillions of dollars on green scams. What is the benefit for the trillions of dollars spent? How much more must be spent? How long will this scam continue?
The companies and individuals that profit from the green scams, carbon trading, and the never ending analysis of the green/climate issues are using fantasy extreme AGW to push the green scams and to profit from the process.
As noted in this paper one economic study used an assumed increase in planetary temperature of 12C to determine economic impact (a super high upper end is used to multiple the economic costs) which is absurd. Even if 100% of the warming observed in the last 70 years was due to the increase in CO2 the warming from today to 2100 with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 there would be less than 0.5C warming. (See comment for details.)
There is no end to the shenanigans. The observed warming in the last 70 years is at high latitudes which supports the scientific assertion that the planet’s feedback response is negative rather than positive (it is a fact that cloud cover in the tropical region increases or decreases to resist warming), the ‘Stern’ type AGW economic analysis uses a ridiculous amplification case (positive feedback which is only possible if the tropical troposphere amplifies the CO2 forcing which it does not, it is fact that the warming of the tropical troposphere is 100% to 300% less than what the IPCC’s general circulation model predict) to get a high temperature increase for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and then moves the warming down to lower latitudes to enable the increase to occur in regions that are relatively hot (tropical Africa for example) rather than relatively cold (Canada and Russia for example) and then adds droughts as opposed to a general increase in precipitation (a warmer planet is a wetter planet with less extreme rather than more extreme climate events due to a reduction in latitudinal temperature differences) to multiple the consequences.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-0911-4
“Tall tales and fat tails: the science and economics of extreme warming”
“A secondary conclusion relates to the importance of the damage function in economic analysis. As we saw in Section 3, with one damage function the expected value of the policy was rather insensitive to the probability of extreme warming, while another damage function makes the economic analysis hypersensitive. This is because each damage function implicitly defines what level of warming is considered catastrophic, and uncertainty about extreme warming plays a profoundly different role in economic analysis depending on how we define ‘catastrophic’. For all of the focus on the economics of catastrophic climate change, surprisingly little attention has been paid to this issue. At a basic level, we must try to understand better the limits of human adaptation to climate change. A noteworthy example is provided by Sherwood and Huber (2010), who note that for wet-bulb temperatures above 35◦ C, dissipation of metabolic heat becomes impossible in humans and mammals, causing hyperthermia and death. They proceed to estimate that with an increase in global mean temperature of roughly 12◦ C, most of today’s population would be living in areas that would experience wet-bulb temperatures of more than 35◦ C for extended periods. Given how important the limits of adaptation appear to be for economic calculations, further exploration of such limitations may prove informative.
Our analysis indicates it would be especially valuable to gain a greater understanding of both the physical and social processes associated with a much warmer world. The proposed endeavour will necessarily be speculative in many respects. It will involve trying to understand which physical feedbacks will become significant in the next few centuries, and how much warming they can and cannot account for. It will require that we both imagine and take seriously the social and demographic processes that would accompany a quickly changing climate. The fat tail of the climate sensitivity distribution has perhaps been an effective vehicle for bringing attention to the issue of extreme warming, but it is time to move beyond this convenient metaphor (William: Why the heck is a metaphor required for an analysis? Do the analysis on multiple cases with realistic future temperature rises) and build a scientific view of society in a rapidly warming world.”
Comment: Observed temperature response of the planet supports the assertion that there is negative rather than positive feedback response to change in forcing. As warming for neutral (neither positive or negative) feedback is only 1.2 and 0.7C warming has occurred to date.) A realistic case for predicted warming to 2100 is therefore 0.5C warmer than today with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes. For that case there is no adaptation required, the temperature rise is primarily beneficial. The CO2 rise is beneficial.
The IPCC sees it all slipping away. They are terrified to admit a crack in the facade. Thus their motto is “The best defense is a good offense.”
Soon to be sent to all scientific publications are instructions that press releases are to include this phrase “Its worse than we thought.”
Stern’s statement about Tol being “an outlier” reminds me of an old joke I sometimes use to lighten the tone when I am giving a talk to a mixed discipline scientific audience. It goes something like this:
——————-
Some scientists were given the problem of proving that all numbers are prime.
The mathematician’s proof is: 2 is prime, 2+1 = 3 is prime. Therefore all numbers are prime by induction.
The engineer’s proof is: 2 is prime, 3 is prime, 4 is prime, 5 is prime. Well it looks like all numbers are prime and that’s good enough for me. [remember this is just a joke]
The computer scientist’s proof is: 2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime, 2 is prime………..
The astronomer’s proof is: 2 is prime, 3 is prime, 4 is, hmmmm, well it must be bad data, an outlier, so we throw it out, 5 is prime so it looks like a trend and all numbers must be prime.
——- — —–
The joke can be continued for several other disciplines but you get the gist. The joking part is the (in this case self deprecating and usually humorous to astronomers) reference to a cavalier dismissing as an outlier anything that does not agree with your pre-conceived notion. I am thinking of modifying the joke the next time to replace the astronomer with a climate scientist.
Col,
The fact remains that China is increasing it’s use of coal right now, not reducing it. All of this talk of what China is going to do in a decade and what the mix will be in 2030 and how many nuclear reactors they’ll have at the turn of the century is all jolly good fun, but it doesn’t change the fact that China burns almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined today, and that they are increasing their use of coal, not reducing it, today.
Say, let’s table the political measures and the War on Coal in the U.S. for a decade and see what happens in China first? I’d be good with that.
At most, 1.5% of Chinese energy comes from wind and solar. Despite all the blather to the contrary, coal is still king in China…
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2013/12/02/not-much-of-chinese-energy-is-from-wind-or-solar/
As regards China, there are big liquidity problems:”Over the past month, we have explained in detail not only how the Chinese credit collapse and massive carry unwind will look like in theory, but shown various instances how, in practice, the world’s greatest debt bubble is starting to burst. One thing we have not commented on was how actual trade pathways – far more critical to offshore counterparts than merely credit tremors within the mainland – would be impacted once the nascent liquidity crisis spread. Today, we find the answer courtesy of the WSJ which reports that for the first time in the current Chinese liquidity crunch, Chinese importers, for now just those of soybeans and rubber but soon most other products, “are backing out of deals, adding to a wide range of evidence showing rising financial stress in the world’s second-biggest economy.” In other words, the World’s second largest economy may not have the funds to move anywhere but to stay with the cheapest fuel-coal!
http://www.zerohedge.com/
It just occurred to me that this guy, Stern, has really no alternative reason to say anything other than his continued stream of fabrications about carbon tax and Carbon trading. It serves him no purpose to retreat one bit on his 1970s hippie green religion. What else is he going to do? Did you listen to his language? It is a steady stream of Green vernacular babble, all BS and phraseology of long practiced diatribes. Makes me wonder what I will sound like when I get old…er. Stern is absolutely deluded. He is gone.
As far as ABC goes. I could detect some skepticism in his response to Sterns remarks about Sterns claims of China’s efforts wrt coal plants etc. It was pretty stunning how Stern is so emphatic about how the world should turn on what China is doing then he immediately disavows knowing what the facts were. “don’t hold me to those numbers” he says after trying to browbeat Australia and the world into changing the world currency to carbon. ‘Oh don’t hold me to those numbers. I don’t know what they are [ but they are fantastic].”
Stern is an ass. He is a liar. He is a hippie leftover.
I think ABC could have gone a little farther. Prime Minister Harper killed Kyoto etc in Canada. Now Canadian news is pivoting to mock global warming:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/03/20140314-071457.html
Brian Lilley is the prime time Canadian News anchor for Sun News, which get greater viewership than the CBC.
Australia and Canada are both walking away from the Eco-extremists. Decades of lies have revealed the green religion for what is is, a wealth redistribution cult.
To add to MikeN’s point, the BP Energy Review has China at 50.2% of world coal consumption as of 2012.
From 2002 to 2012 BP claim they went from 868 Million Tones of Oil Equivalent to 1873 MTOE.
In 2002 China consumed 33% of the worlds coal.
http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy-2013/review-by-energy-type/coal/coal-consumption.html
“Delay is very dangerous so one person saying he thinks the risks might be very small is a very marginal part of the argument because most of the science is telling us that the risks are very big and with the irreversibility that we see in this, any kind of common sense or risk analysis says we should act strongly…”
——-
We can’t have a marginal part of the argument. Look at the past scientific break-throughs, they’ve always come from huge consensus. No “lone wolf” on the fringes of the consensus was ever right about anything. The masses are never in error. /sarc
MikeT says:
March 28, 2014 at 5:01 am
“Don’t get too excited that the ABC and its “ethnic TV” companion SBS are developing even-handedness in the CAGW “debate”. Both channels’ evening news programs featured a sickening segment featuring Ban Ki Moon in Greenland…”
The same propaganda is being broadcast every day in Britain by the BBC and Channel 4 on their news programs, and, as usual, opinion and speculation about climate is being treated as proven scientific fact. It’s all part of the “global warming” climate hysterics’ campaign to browbeat those non-believing politicians and bureaucrats into signing unbreakable CO2 reduction treaties. This process will continue until next year, when it is planned that a world-wide agreement binding on all governments will be formalized.
There is a feeling of desperation about the climate hysterics. They seem to think that this will be their last opportunity to get their agenda accepted and imposed world-wide before the whole “global warming” scam finally collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
Didn’t take long for the ‘rebuttal’ to see the light of day.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/28/ipcc-climate-costs-estimate-meaningless
Col Mosby says:
March 28, 2014 at 7:20 am
Col, if china reduces coal use percentage not by shutting down an existing coal plant, but by instead adding 1 new coal plant plus 1 nuclear plant plus 1 hydroelectric plant, has their total CO2 emission gone down or gone up? Can you envision a scenario where their coal use as a percent of total power generation might go as low as 60% or even lower, and yet total CO2 emissions could still be increasing? If other countries throughout the world follow china’s good example, how long will it take for global warming to be reversed?
In 2014, Chinese CO2 emissions will be double those of the US. The future course of their emissions is basically dependent on their rate of economic growth and their improvement in emission intensity (CO2 emitted per $GDP). The Chinese have pledged to improve their emission intensity by about 3% per year, roughly what the developed world has done for the past half century. To pick your favorite estimate for the growth of the Chinese economy, subtract 3% if you are optimistic that the Chinese will meet their objectives, add it to 1, and calculate the exponential growth rate until their emissions are triple the US’s. Even with a 4% growth rate, China’s emissions will be triple the US (a 50% increase from today) in another decade! That’s right – if the US managed to reduce emissions the requested 80% over the next decade, the almost inevitable growth in Chinese emissions will more than negate those cutbacks. There are several billion other people in the undeveloped world who are desperate to follow China’s path.
Lord Stern is not alone in his envy of China’s Communist overlords. It’s easier if you can just tell blokes how it’s gonna be.
Here is New York Times’ Thomas Friedman on the “great advantages” of “reasonably enlightened” one-party dictatorships:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html
Cheshirered says:
Didn’t take long for the ‘rebuttal’ to see the light of day.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/28/ipcc-climate-costs-estimate-meaningless
…Notice the Guardian’s new habit of disabling the Reader’s Comments section for all their “global warming” stories, such as this. RIP CiF.
Cheshirered says:
March 28, 2014 at 8:26 am
Didn’t take long for the ‘rebuttal’ to see the light of day.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/28/ipcc-climate-costs-estimate-meaningless
————————————-
You can tell when an IPCC report or major climate holiday/conference is imminent by the massive increase in front page alarmism in The Guardian. It’s been in overdrive for the last few weeks.
There was a time, a while back, when I thought even The Guardian was starting to soft pedal the hysteria a bit. The number of prominent “we’re all doomed!” articles seemed to have noticeably declined – possibly as an ill-fated attempt to slip out of the back door without being noticed – but like junkies returning for one last fix…
Col Mosby says:
March 28, 2014 at 7:20 am
“Nothing like a pack of lies to incite the mob, eh? China’s use of coal has slowed to less than a third of what it was increasing during the 2004-2010 period. ”
Calls other people liars, then says
“China’s use of coal has slowed to less than a third of what it was increasing”
What do you mean with “USE OF COAL HAS SLOWED”; I take it that they burn it with one third of the speed they did before? Oh wait; there’s also an “INCREASING” in your sentence; okay, so what you really WANT to say is that they burn MORE coal now;
so I see that you completely agree with the statement you criticized even though you are incapable of forming a well-formed sentence.
Paul Westhaver says:
March 28, 2014 at 8:00 am
“As far as ABC goes. I could detect some skepticism in his response to Sterns remarks about Sterns claims of China’s efforts wrt coal plants etc. ”
ABC is a far left organisation and therefore capable of purging any employee who dares to think for himself on a whim.