Brilliance from rent-seeking NGO’s – climate change wouldn’t be a problem if we just left nature “intact”

From the “I thought [ ] my heater and [my] air conditioner was the best defense” department and the society of brain-dead wishful group-think at the Wildlife Conservation Society (and friends) comes this stunner of a press release. Perhaps they haven’t noticed the other environmentalists wailing about the coral reefs already being dead, or the global loss of native forests (they had to go all the way to Madagascar for the photo), or that fact that the world has already pledged 100 billion dollars as part of the wealth redistribution climate healing campaign. I guess if they just issue a press release saying so, all these things will be magically fixed/healed/solved.

Intact nature offers best defense against climate change

Intact forests like this one in Madagascar represent our greatest protection against floods and storms. CREDIT Julie Larsen Maher/WCS

Intact forests like this one in Madagascar represent our greatest protection against floods and storms.
CREDIT Julie Larsen Maher/WCS

Key points:

  • Many climate adaptation strategies such as sea wall construction and new agricultural practices do more harm than good
  • Native forests reduce the frequency and severity of floods
  • Coral reefs can reduce wave energy by an average of 97 per cent, providing a more cost-effective defense from storm surges than engineered structures
  • The cost of adaptation to climate change could reach 100 billion per year

NEW YORK (January 28, 2016) – Worldwide responses to climate change could leave people worse off in the future according to a recent study conducted by CSIRO, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and the University of Queensland.

The paper, “Intact ecosystems provide the best defense against climate change,” published today in Nature Climate Change, discusses how certain adaptation strategies may have a negative impact on nature which in turn will impact people in the long-term.

“In response to climate change, many local communities around the world are rapidly adjusting their livelihood practices to cope with climate change, sometimes with catastrophic implications for nature,” according to CSIRO’s principal research scientist Dr. Tara Martin.

The authors say that in Australia and Canada, conservation reserves are being used as drought relief to feed livestock, while forests in the Congo Basin in Africa are being cleared for agriculture in response to drought, and coral reefs are being destroyed to build sea walls from the low-lying islands in Melanesia.

Dr. Martin added: “These are just few of the human responses to climate change that, if left unchallenged, may leave us worse off in the future due to their impacts on nature. Functioning and intact, forests, grasslands, wetlands and coral reefs represent our greatest protection against floods and storms.”

The paper states that intact native forests have been shown to reduce the frequency and severity of floods, while coral reefs can reduce wave energy by an average of 97 per cent, providing a more cost-effective defense from storm surges than engineered structures.

Likewise, coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and tidal marshes are proving to be a more cost-effective and ecologically sound alternative to buffering storms than conventional coastal engineering solutions.

Co-author Dr James Watson, a lead scientist with WCS and Principle Research Fellow at the University of Queensland, said that with more than 100 million people per year at risk from increasing floods and tropical cyclones, ill-conceived adaptation measures that destroy the ecosystems, which offer our most effective and inexpensive line of defense, must be avoided.

“The cost of adaptation to climate change could reach 100 billion per year in the coming decades but this is small change when we consider the environmental and economic fallout from not using nature to help us cope with climate change,” said Dr. Watson.

Dr. Watson added: “If we consider another perverse mechanism contributing to climate change, fossil fuel subsidies, it is small change. A recent report by the International Monetary Fund estimates global energy subsidies for 2015 at $US5.3 trillion per year. Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emission by 20 percent and raise government revenue by 2.9 trillion, well over the funds needed for intelligent policy and action on climate adaptation.”

“Fortunately some adaptation strategies are being developed that do not destroy nature, some of which are even ecosystem-based. The protection and restoration of mangrove forests that is actively funded by agencies such as USAID is a prime example,” Dr. Watson said.

###

148 thoughts on “Brilliance from rent-seeking NGO’s – climate change wouldn’t be a problem if we just left nature “intact”

  1. “A recent report by the International Monetary Fund estimates global energy subsidies for 2015 at $US5.3 trillion per year. Eliminating fossil fuel subsidies would slash global carbon emission by 20 percent and raise government revenue by 2.9 trillion, well over the funds needed for intelligent policy and action on climate adaptation.”

    Since the VAST MAJORITY of these “subsidies” go toward allowing impoverished residents of oil-rich countries to buy and use fuels at a reduced price rather than the market price, how would eliminating this subsidy reduce emissions?

    It would just make the market price of oil drop, since the oil they are now using would go unused and flood onto the market. Then the rich countries would buy and use more, and countries that wouldn’t usually buy as much because the market price is a bit too high would buy more.

    Whatever oil gets pumped will get used, whether by poor countries, rich countries, or those in between. Short term fluctuations in price and demand due to huge changes in policies like they are talking about are irrelevant in the big picture.

    • Most energy subsidies are in third world countries.

      The reduction in oil consumption would reduce price and limit production.
      If oil prices remain at $30 the output over 5 years would fall and substantially that would thus reduce consumption.
      On a basis of historic cost the volume would be at least 10mmbbl/d.
      I suspect on a very long basis say 15 years probably more like 20mmbbl/d

      • Hello Bill,
        you painted the wrong picture, just to connect the dots, the British Government collects 70% of the pump price in taxes ( other countries are all trying for second place ) for the Government its instant cash!

      • If oil prices remain at $30 the output over 5 years would fall and substantially that would thus reduce consumption.
        =================================
        nope. low price encourages more consumption. and paradoxically, countries like Saudi that rely on oil revenues, need to pump even more oil when prices are low, to maintain their revenues. Which further drives down the price.

        when prices are high, Saudi can cut back on supply and still maintain their revenues, which is the reverse of normal supply and demand. normally high prices increase supply.

      • Bill: by ‘subsidies’ [they] mean deducting the cost of truck maintenance and repair (for example) as a cost of doing business.
        You would never guess that because it is so stupid, but that is where the figure $2.9 trillion comes from. What they means is to stop counting all operating costs as ‘expenses’ because they are now called ‘subsidies’. Geddit? Everything spent in the production of oil would have to come out of ‘profit’ where ‘profit’ is 100% of income. Then the oil companies would be taxed on 100% of gross revenue on the basis that it is ‘profit’. So instead of having 3-5% profit as they do now, all revenue would be treated as profit.

        Because this is so stupid and no one above the age of 10 could think it up, everyone reading is excused for not understanding where this ‘subsidy’ cancellation comes from.

        The carpenter’s equivalent is that if he builds you a house, his net income for tax purposes is the cost of the house, not the selling price minus the cost of materials and sub-contracted services. Those expenses will be treated as ‘subsidies’ because government presently says they are deductible from gross revenues.

        Obviously this will end all exploration, production and distribution of oil products. Applied to the wind, solar and hydro industries, it will bring them to a halt too. Think of the money governments will make!! Ooooh, they are so clevah!

        A friend of mine was in Zaire in the early 70’s. Chickens were $5. Someone figured out that if everyone charged $10 per chicken, they would all get rich. So one day all chickens at all markets were $10 and they did indeed get rich, very quickly. See how simple it is? To make a lot of money all you have to do is charge a great deal for a product or service that is worth much less in real terms. Think…windmills.

        Oh, it also ended bank robberies. After a while money was worth so little that you had to show up with a dump truck to carry enough money to be worth stealing and it just wasn’t worth the effort. Think: Zimbabwe.

      • In a commodity glut suppliers usually reduce output by cutting exploration and mothballing production plants. Eventually the glut disappears and prices start to rise again. At which point it is attractive to reopen plants again. The Chinese boom led to a commodity shortage, a big rise in prices which has now become a slump as supply increased and the Chinese demand slowed down. Oil used to be more controlled as the OPEC cartel would vary supply to keep the price up but now we have Saudi Arabia trying to drive US shale and possibly Russian production out of business. However, they might not be able to do this for too much longer as they are causing themselves a budget deficit that is eating up even their reserves of cash.

    • Oil use in rich countries is quite price-inflexible.
      However, oil use in poor countries is reduced by high prices.
      So I would expect a reduction in oil company subsidies to cause a reduction in use by the poorest of countries. However, no meaningful change in the wealthier ones.

      Once again, a well meaning initiative’s goal ends up doing nothing but hurting the poor.

      • They don’t even care about the environment. Just look at how often their wunderkind solutions cause more damage then the alternative.

      • Come now, let’s get rid of this conspiracy nonsense. Especially “Agenda 21”. The UN doesn’t control the world any more than the Freemasons do. I doubt most people outside of our little circle could even tell you what Agenda 21 IS. Heck, I doubt most of y’all could give an accurate description without looking it up.

        Remember that most people are not evil, just wrong. They think they are doing the right thing, but are missing all the unintended consequences of their actions. Many of the rest are just stupid. The only people that I would consider actually evil are: proven frauds especially scientists who fabricated evidence (not the self-deceived, which are hard to distinguish), those engaged in active hypocrisy, and those who actively advocate mass impoverization and genocide.

        “Agenda 21” isn’t an answer. It’s a conspiracy theory and an argument dismissal. It’s as bad a conversation-ender as calling someone a “denier”. A valid argument is: “he didn’t think this through”, “the guy’s an idiot, believing that a coral reef can protect an island”, or even “he’s evil and wants people to die so nature can thrive”. That last would be tough to prove but at least would be a basis.

      • Actually Ben, it isn’t. If you go to the UN website and have a read of the actual documents you will see why people are worried.

        The argument is simple, since resources and the ecology are planetary in scope and the actions of one nation will affect others, then there should be a controlling body (unelected) of “specialists” who get to tell nations what they can and cannot do. There will of course be the need for an enforcement arm. ;)

        It’s no theory, the UN makes it quite plain and open what the intention is.

      • Benofhouston-
        It’s not a theory, or a conspiracy ben, it’s an actual, real document…all 700 pages of it.

        “The UN doesn’t control the world any more than the Freemasons do.”

        No one said they did. That does not mean they aren’t trying to.

        “I doubt most people outside of our little circle could even tell you what Agenda 21 IS. Heck, I doubt most of y’all could give an accurate description without looking it up.”

        Why? Did you have to look it up ben? I doubt most of the people in my “little circle would have to look it up and could tell you exactly what it is. Maybe because where I live, people are trying to actively BAN it from the books, and the people where I live are “into” what’s going on around them.

        “It’s as bad a conversation-ender as calling someone a “denier”.

        Really? There’s nothing wrong with the word “denier”. It just depends on whether or not the person being called a denier is actually denying something or not doesn’t it? For example, you seem to be attempting to end a conversation about Agenda 21 by calling it a conspiracy theory and equating the very mention of it with something else you think is “bad”. Surely you cant “deny” that.

        “Remember that most people are not evil, just wrong.”

        “The only people that I would consider actually evil are: proven frauds especially scientists who fabricated evidence (not the self-deceived, which are hard to distinguish), those engaged in active hypocrisy, and those who actively advocate mass impoverization and genocide.”

        Have you run the actual numbers ben? How confident are you that “most people” don’t fall into at least one of those categories? Evil is evil. People are people. People are not evil. But a crapping lot of them sure do evil things, whether by accident or intentionally. And both are wrong.

      • The conspiracy comes when you think it means something. Yeah, the UN has agendas. They have a lot of people and make a lot of documents. They also couldn’t do anything about Syria using chemical weapons on their own people. While they might try to run the world or pretend to do so, the UN doesn’t run anything.

        The conspiracy theory comes when you think there is some united front trying to implement this obscure document. It’s a non-binding plan from the Rio climate conference. As far as plans and international diplomacy go, it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. Half the passages were added specifically to please one member or another, and it’s strength is comparable to single-ply toilet paper.

        It’s not in the books because there’s nothing to write about. There’s no grand meeting of people trying to implement this plan in your local city council. Any idea is good or bad on it’s own merits. Trying to tie it to this overriding master plan just makes you look crazy. If it’s a good idea who cares if it helps Agenda 21, do it anyway because it’s a good idea. If it’s a bad idea, then shoot it down based on the facts, not due to any connection to a failed conference.

        As far as my conviction that most people are genuinely good, it comes from talking to the other side. Progressives typically have their positions because they want to help people. Most of them are actually quite receptive to ideas, and often they are horrified at the idea of the unintended consequences of their actions. Of course, this presumes they are willing to talk. The ones who think conservatives are satan incarnate probably won’t even listen in the first place.

    • In fact most of these IMF “subsidies” aren’t subsidies at all in the normal use of that term. The IMF claims that Canada’s fossil-fuel subsidies totalled $45.2 billion in 2015. These subsidies consisted of: global warming – $17.2 billion US; air pollution – $6.05 billion US; congestion – $14.89 billion US; accidents – $2.08 billion US; road damage – $0.88 billion US; foregone consumption tax revenue – $3.54 billion US.

      The first two items are model-based guesstimates of fossil-fuel externalities. Congestion, accidents and road damage would occur if electric cars were being used and are obviously not fossil-fuel “subsidies”. None of these items represent the type of direct subsidies which most people associate with the word “subsidies”. This IMF report is political propaganda by an international organization looking to increase its power and influence using climate change hysteria.
      http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm

  2. I guess some people are never happy. The great vistory in Paris wasn’t good enough for them.

  3. “Native forests reduce the frequency and severity of floods”
    The U.S.A forests have increased greatly in the last 50 years. Something like 50% more trees on the lower 48. So, again, you’re welcome world.

    • 50% more trees on the lower 48
      =====================
      they quit cutting them down to burn and switched to coal. Now they are cutting them down again and sending them to the UK for Drax to burn.

    • You know….you’d think that evolution would have caused them to be born tail-less thousands of years ago…considering how often they die from being bitten there….:)

  4. Well, I’ll agree with their premise that a lot of active projects are misapplied and can leave things worse than they are.

    However, their “leave it alone and it will be better” is reminiscent of naturalists prescribing quinine instead of filtered and processed malaria medication. It’s “natural” so it must be better. Even if it is actually better than nothing, claiming that a coral reef is hugely superior to a seawall is simply stupid. If it was, then why would engineers and governments build seawalls, and continue to build more? It’s not like the effectiveness of hurricane protection can be masked.

    This is more of the same anti-development naturalism that we’ve seen time and time again.

    • Coral reefs wouldn’t do a lot for country like the Netherlands. I guess the Dutch engineers and government realize that coral reefs won’t help to protect a lot of their land which is below sea level!

      • coral reefs able to protect the coastline only grow in the tropics because warming will kill them.

  5. Let all the Greens go to some isolated island and form a society strictly committed to no intervention with ‘nature’.
    No agriculture
    No clothes
    No windmills or solar cells (they also interfere with nature).
    etc;etc.

    • One step further, Let them all form independent cities in several nations and prove the Carbon Free lifestyle.
      No Gas, No Oil, No Plastics or other oil derivatives, etc… and let them prove to the rest of the world just how Utopic their vision is. If everyone wants to live there, problem solved. If their energy source doesn’t work, Problem solved (they can Buy their way out) assuming they still have the means of creating wealth.

  6. Typo alert!
    “From the “I thought is was my heater and air conditioner was the best defense” department and the society of brain-dead wishful group-think at the Wildlife Conservation Society (and friends) comes this stunner of a press release.”

    [There are a number of ways of structuring that thought. None are perfect. .mod]

  7. Scratch a warmunist and you’ll find a Malthusian. Every time.

    But they never seem to want to go first, do they?

    Stone-age conditions are for the little people.

  8. Live in harmony with nature, eating nuts and berries and climbing trees to escape predators and if you’re lucky enough to reach the ripe old age of forty, you’ll be one of the tribe’s “ancient ones”.

    Sounds like a suicidal solution.

    • a suicidal solution
      ================
      try living in the jungle. the bugs will make you wish for death.

      • ferd
        after a few weeks of not bathing and slathering mud all over your body, the bugs will be manageable, almost

    • Ah, echoes of the Lazlow interview with Reed Tucker in GTA III.

      Reed: “Shut up you carnivore, why don’t you go gnaw on a bone like a gorilla Lazlow! Our ancestors didn’t eat chicken wings, they lived at one with nature and their eco-system. Existing on a diet of nuts, berries and leafy vegetables.”
      Lazlow: “Heheh yes, and they threw stones at their own shadow and died of old-age and fear at 24!”

    • Ah but this is a more sophisticated ‘average’ of 97% (range 100% to 94%?). How are we going to charge up our cars on windless nights if there’s no wave enery?

    • nah that trend is flat no changes at all it were the neanderthals that were smarter then we thought and drove around in cars, flew airplanes and had electricity and lived in cities from which we can dream of and of which Plato made the legend of atlantis…..
      it’s all because of us humans :-)

      • Every animal that has ever existed strives to modify it’s environment for it’s own benefit.
        Some are just better at it than others.

  9. “Co-author Dr James Watson, a lead scientist with WCS and Principle Research Fellow at the University of Queensland…”

    I guess he’s all about the principles.

    • We don’t need pruufreaders or chequers now that we have computerz. Screw attention to detail, that’s a job for the little people!

    • I don’t know much about academics in Australia, but is it possible that “University of Queensland” is merely code for “Morons R Us”? As soon as I see “University of Queensland” I know whatever it discusses will be stupid, irrational, illogical, and pretty much something that could have been written by pot smoking monkeys. Only that’s insulting to monkeys.

      • Like most universities in Australia they are inhabited by cloistered academics of average intelligence with nothing to do and when some grant money arrives: relevance and a chance for publication.All they ever say is the bleeding obvious( unless they draw wrong conclusions).Welcome to the post-modernist world.

      • “inhabited by cloistered academics of average intelligence with nothing to do and when some grant money arrives”

        Ahhhh. Here in the states we call people like that bureaucrats. Or activists.

      • Australian academia has an enviable record of excoriating exceptional geologists such as Bob Carter, Sam Carey and Ian Plimer. The only surprise is that a PhD course in Brown-nosing has yet to be established.

  10. Maybe a reactive response, responding to threats we know exit now, is better than reacting to future threats since we have no idea how climate is likely to change in the near or distant future. The climate models have been falsified, responding to [their] output is a fools errand.

    Also a little common sense might be in order, such as the cessation of construction in coastal areas that are below sea level.

    • Wait, confused, I believe the environmentalists who wrote the article just told us that we CAN do wrong while trying to save the planet. Or ourselves. Or both.

      • Well, this is no “Leonardo di Caprio taking time off from basking on a yacht owned by an oil tycoon to fly to Switzerland to lecture us on how we can save the oceans”, but its pretty funny too.

        And by funny I mean pathetically predictable and having no impact on the fanboys and -girls who will hang on his every utterance like he actually knows anything other than the next line that someone else wrote for him.

    • Even if you are following instructions from a government official:

      But the tech pioneer said the yacht’s crew had followed the Port Authority’s instructions of where to place the boat.

      The ship was reportedly diverted by shifting winds towards the reef, before it was moved to avoid damage.

      “Vulcan Inc. and Paul G. Allen have a long history of responsible exploration and a commitment to ocean conservation,” said Mr Allen in a statement issued through Vulcan – his project management company.

      He said the ship was moored in a position “explicitly directed by the local Port Authority”.

      So we have an environmentalist billionaire actively working to expand the role of government in protecting the environment accused of causing extensive damage as a direct result of following official instructions. The irony is delicious. Don’t expect the Cayman government to apologize and accept responsibility.

  11. What he actually wants is to kill billions of poor people by depriving them of fuel in order to deprive of food and shelter.

    He must stay alive though, to make sure they are dead.

  12. Ok, so who is going to sit Fabius Maximus down and break this to him? No sea walls, no “artificial” climate change preventative measures.

    And just exactly HOW do these Giants of Natural Protection think we should go about convincing coral and mangroves to grow in areas in which it’s too freaking cold and too freaking turbulent for them to grow now? For example, off the coast of New York? Where do we find coral and mangroves that can thrive AND protect the East Coast from hurricane force waves?

    But wait….where did that last tropical storms devastate those islands which are located near what is called the “coral triangle”? Did they just not have the “wave reducing” coral there? Were their mangroves the wrong kind? Obviously the “in tact” “Nature” hasn’t done a crapping thing to prevent severe weather (not climate) from devastating places in the past…so why do they think it’s going to magically start doing it now?

    Oh, and humans are PART OF the biosphere. We’re NATURAL. They just need to think of us as giant ants, who like to tunnel for oil, then burn it for survival, and use it to create almost every conceivable, usable item we can imagine. If humans needed to EAT trees for survival (instead of using them to build houses and other things which help keep us alive) like termites, we’d release a heckofalot more CO2 than our consumption of fossil fuels does, but we’d be destroying the climate NATURALLY, and they’d be ok with that….right?

    Someone actually said the other day in a discussion revolving around the law of conservation/mass balance, that out of all the “carbon reservoirs”, humans are the only ones that are a constant source of carbon, and never a sink. I literally laughed until I cried. Humans are MADE of carbon, we’re a natural sink and the more there are of us, the more carbon we “sequester” until we die. I tried to get him to see that the “source” of our fossil fuel carbon is the lithosphere, we get it out of the ground. We don’t make or create carbon out of thin air in our homes at night when no one is looking. And the carbon that is buried in the ground, was once part of the biosphere, just like we are now. It’s all just a cycle. Humans are just participating in the carbon cycle, as naturally as anything else does. When a volcano erupts, it’s tossing massive amounts of sequestered and gas and other things from the lithosphere into the atmosphere. All that carbon then gets recycled back into the other reservoirs-the biosphere, the atmosphere, and the hydrosphere. Eventually, it all ends up back in the lithosphere again because plants eat it, humans and animals eat the plants, humans eat some of the animals, or other animals eat them, and in the end, we all end up as decay either at the bottom of the oceans or absorbed into the ground on land.

    The entire idea that humans are “un-natural”, that we are doing something foreign or alien by participating in the natural carbon cycle is idiotic, unscientific, and completely unenlightened at it’s very foundation. For example-Trees and plants that should not be growing in certain places ARE, because birds and other animals consumed their seeds and “naturally” RELOCATED them elsewhere, in other habitats. But if humans relocate trees or transplant things in other areas, we are “destroying and unnatural.” Earthquakes tear the earth apart, tectonics grind and subduct it, volcanoes melt and burn and release it’s properties back into the environment “naturally”. But if humans tear into it, or grind it up to make concrete, or melt and burn and release it back into the environment-its UNnatural. Alien. Wrong.

    How is it that the most sentient, advanced species on this planet has arrived at a place in which it no longer views itself as PART of the natural, carbon based cycle of life from which it originated?

  13. “The authors say that in […] Canada, conservation reserves are being used as drought relief to feed livestock,”

    They are?? Where? Why haven’t I heard of it here in Canada but they know all about it in Queensland?

  14. I suppose they would be in favor of blowing up the dikes surrounding the Netherlands and let nature take it’s course. Keep all those tulips from sucking that co2 out of the air.

  15. There are almost no fossil fuel subsidies except within OPEC (e.g. venezuela, saudi arabia, iran). That is an old warmunist canard. Depletion allowances, depreciation,and the like are not subsidies. Federal mineral rights are auctioned to the highest bidder.
    OTH, there are most definitely subsidies (PTC, federally guaranteed loans, feed in tarrifs, …) for renewbles and biofuels (e.g. DRAX woodchips now being investigated by the EU as excessive). Because without them there would be no wind, solar, or biofuels, as Spain has just proven.

  16. ” could leave people worse off ”
    Don’t you love the word could.

    ” could reach 100 billion per year”
    oh for could, for could..

    ” may leave us worse off ”
    thank goodness for a may.

    ” Many climate adaptation strategies such as sea wall construction and new agricultural practices do more harm than good ”

    If only we would return to slash and burn practices, or better yet, let’s all starve to death. Protecting nature… don’t look at the hidden agenda behind the green curtain… is the highest and most important goal.

    Too bad they aren’t saying what leaves us better off. I have quite a few ideas on what will leave us better off.

  17. It’s simple to understand this ideology:
    If a human builds a dam. That is interfering with the natural flow of a river.
    Interfering with rivers is bad.
    Also if a human interferes with a population of beavers then that too is bad.
    Because beavers build dams.
    And so disturbing beavers interferes with activities of a creature which interferes with the flow of rivers.
    And interfering with the flow of rivers is, in this case, good.
    Nope – wait a minute – I’ve already completely confused myself.

    • indefatigablefrog

      And interfering with the flow of rivers is, in this case, good.

      But blocking waters with dams is bad, because then the slowly released fresh water downstream into brackish waters in the delta and river mouth must be kept constant all seasons of all years because otherwise the salt water would be present in too strong a ratio when the rivers do not flow in drought years like they didn’t flow during drought years before the dams were built, but did flood with fresh water causing too little salt in the no-longer brackish delta waters when the floods came before the dams were built.

      Right?

      • Yes, not allowing nature to occasionally and quite randomly create a catastrophic flood is quite obviously bad.
        The people must learn to become victims so that the state apparatus can rescue them repeatedly in a dramatic but ineffectual fashion.
        Or occasionally abandon them to misfortune in order to demonstrate the urgent need for more state sponsored climate manipulation.

  18. Leave “nature” alone. Allow the “natural planet” arrive at its “carrying capacity” for technologically advanced bushmen and you will have achieved a monstrous murder of most of humanity which will certainly have consequences for the rest of the biosphere as the population collapse results in the sort of desperation the AGW crowd claim is the result of “climate change”

    It’s beyond idiotic as a proposal for modern society. Such stupidity won’t result in some dystopian “Mad Max” or Hunger games world it will finally result in world war and emerging from that, my friends, republican democracy is unlikely to survive and the “great experiment” in true Constitutional government will be over.

    • Fossilsage,

      It’s over now. Most of what the US government does is not authorized in the Constitution, unless you are a believer that the congress is authorized under the “promote the general welfare” line to do whatever they wish. Or that the POTUS can do whatever he wants without congress. Or that the Supreme Court can “interpret” modificatios of the bill of rights that expressly say “may not be infringed”.

      • The problem with the best systems Man has devised is that there are people involved…and we know what stinkers they can be!

    • “….it will finally result in world war and emerging from that, my friends, republican democracy is unlikely to survive and the “great experiment” in true Constitutional government will be over.”

      Yeah well. That’s your opinion, and it may very well be accurate, but its certainly not the only possibility. For example, Christians aren’t worried about it, because it’s prophesied that upon such catastrophe, God will return and a true Utopia will begin. Most religions bear a similar theme. So what’s a little turmoil and upheaval if that’s the end result? It should also be noted that the “religious right” in the US tend to be extremely well armed, prepping in advance, and resigned to the idea of an end of days type conflict. So either way, it’s win-win for them.

      Should God not return, preppers and other self reliant folks will still most likely be the last ones standing because of their preparation and expectation of such world events. Liberals and others who don’t own guns or stock ammo, can’t take care of themselves without government intervention, and have little to no “out door” survival experience will be the first to die-most likely attempting to get “stuff” that belongs to the prepared ones. Cities dominated by such types, like New York, will consume themselves with violence and greed and panic quickly. Cities in which there is a more down to earth, survivalist mentality, will most likely ban together to create strongholds.

      So you never know. If the majority that’s left ends up being strong willed, patriotic, liberty minded people-it might be a whole lot easier to conduct that “great experiment” the next time around because there might be a whole lot less opposition to it in the future. Or not.

      I’ve always found it kind of amusing/ironic/puzzling that people who don’t believe in “God” or “Christianity” are always trying to undermine it, or talk people who do, out of their beliefs. If you are of the mindset that there is nothing but this life and then death, no hope for a better place or existence, no eternal reward for spending one’s life trying to be nice, kind, selfless, and charitable….why on earth would you want to convince everyone ELSE of that? I mean seriously. Look at the current state of humanity even WITH a large number of people who ARE supposedly religious! Are we not rapidly trending into increased incivility, greed, lust, and depravity? Reason would dictate that the LAST thing you want to do is talk people out something that is supposed to help them overcome their more primal, fallen, carnal tendencies! I mean sure, you could HOPE that the collapse of religions would result in humanity realizing that this one planet is all we have and we should work together to preserve it and treat each other with grace and love. But is that a rational, logical expectation based on the current state of humanity? I don’t think it is! I think what would result is all of the former, mediocre-in-name-only religious people suddenly realizing “Wait…what? No God? Nothing after this? Well then, I’m going to get what is MINE now and screw everyone else because if there’s no reward in the afterlife, then there’s also no punishment either!”

      It seems like the CAGW people don’t really think things through with reason and logic either. For example, they make public statements so the effect that “skeptics” are stupid, selfish, idiots who are being paid by big oil to spread misinformation. But they don’t think that through to all, if any, of the most obvious and logical conclusions…
      1) if big oil really WAS paying people to spread information, then the LAST THING they should be doing is ANNOUNCING that fact, because there are millions of stupid, selfish, idiots who could care less about science or the planet in the first place, who would SIGN UP IMMEDIATELY to work for “big oil”.
      2) if you convince the public that people will say ANYTHING if you pay them enough money, then you’ve just convinced the public that SCIENTISTS (who they insist are people too) will say ANYTHING if you pay them enough money!
      3) If big oil WAS going to “buy people to promote their selfish agenda”, it would be CHEAPER and easier to purchase a handful of prominent scientists, (or heck….put 100 people through college until they get PhD’s in science, pull strings to get those people into positions at NASA and NOAA etc) and simply “change the paradigm/consensus” overnight than it would be to purchase and police and instruct hundreds of thousands of bloggers and talking heads and people who post online! As “evil ” as they think big oil is, they certainly cant think big oil is as STUPID or inefficient with their money as THAT plan would be.
      4) if you write peer reviewed papers highlighting how disturbing and insane people are who believe in conspiracy theories…the last thing you want to do…yourself….is engage in and perpetuate a conspiracy theory about “big oil” and “right wing think tanks” paying members of the public to lie for them!

      That’s why it’s so obvious that John Cook and Gang are either independent idiots on a fool’s errand, or useful idiots working for other idiots, because nothing they produce is well thought out, and so often results in them just digging a fresh hole while trying to infill an old one. It boggles the mind.

      • ” It boggles the mind.”
        That’s evident. But that has to be a complete accident, right?
        You even have said it elicits physical reactions from you.
        Pavlov had similar accidents with a drooling dog.

      • Really? It’s like being followed around by a giggling 8 year old girl waiting for me to repeat a bad word out loud. If you’d like to insinuate that I said something that contradicts something else I said, then please, just get on with it. State it in clear, precise words and I will happily address the issue. If I did, I’ll correct that. If I didn’t, I’ll explain myself and try not to mock you for being pest on top of misinterpreting what I said.

        See how simple grown up conversations should be?

      • Here gnomehead- here’s the comment I think you are referring to for easy reference.

        “John, we HAVE BEEN inoculated. We’ve all had our full series of BULLCRAP shots, so we’re perfectly and totally immune to it. I know it’s your hearts desire to “infect” us all with the malicious disease you and your clubhouse friends suffer from, but it’s no use. The moment you open your mouths, or press letter keys with your fingers, powerful antibodies start surging through our veins.

        Most of us also have physical reactions to just seeing your names in print. Revulsion, hives, uncontrollable laughter, headaches, and nausea are common, as well as Tourette like outbursts involving words like “idiot” “stupid” “invalid” “hilarious”.”

        I’m waiting…

      • yes, that’s the quote.
        my contention is that it’s done deliberately to achieve the result it does achieve.
        you dispute my contention.
        and yet, here we are again, among the walls of text in response to the lews and cooks.
        so even if you have a very good grasp of the principles of logic, somebody has taken away your self possession to the degree that you resort to playground insult.
        even if i’m wrong – even if the systematic chain yanking is accidental- you will still benefit by recognition that chains are being yanked and that you lose control of yourself when they decide to do it.
        later, if you think about it – you might ask, after so many such ‘accidents’, whether somebody is aware of the cause and effect.
        and also, you might realize that i’m not the one yanking your chain.
        i am drawing attention to these strings and it’s your choice to cut them or be a puppet.
        I think that’s honorable. if an 8 year old girl were able to do that, i’d admire her greatly for the effort, whether successful or not.
        you’re welcome.

      • “yes, that’s the quote.”
        Thought so.
        “my contention is that it’s done deliberately to achieve the result it does achieve. you dispute my contention.”

        “Of course I dispute it. Any rational person would. You cannot prove your contention is true. It MIGHT be, but it also equally might not be.”

        “and yet, here we are again, among the walls of text in response to the lews and cooks.
        so even if you have a very good grasp of the principles of logic, somebody has taken away your self possession to the degree that you resort to playground insult.”

        I call it like I see it. If you find 8 year old giggling girls to be an insult, that’s on you. To me, they are merely annoying, and based on the evidence you provide here, my analogy was spot on. Offering another personal opinion (that someone has taken away my self possession) is merely another example of flawed logic.

        “even if i’m wrong” (yeah….we’re making progress) – even if the systematic chain yanking is accidental- you will still benefit by recognition that chains are being yanked and that you lose control of yourself when they decide to do it.”

        Here’s the thing, as a self possessed person, I can express myself any way I wish to without “losing control” of myself. I don’t CARE if they are, or are not, yanking my chains. I have the right to speak freely and express my OPINIONS just like you do.

        “later, if you think about it – you might ask, after so many such ‘accidents’, whether somebody is aware of the cause and effect. and also, you might realize that i’m not the one yanking your chain.”

        Again, the “chain yanking” is entirely theoretical at this point isn’t it? And allowing someone else’s chain yanking, whether real or imaginary, to control what I say or don’t say would indeed indicate that someone had possession of me other than myself! How circular can your reasoning be without making you dizzy?

        “I am drawing attention to these strings and it’s your choice to cut them or be a puppet.”

        Good for me! But guess what, not only do I have the choice to cut them, or ignore them or deny them, but I also have the choice to call your assumptions arrogant AND illogical, because they are. (and paranoid and very conspiracy theorist)

        “I think that’s honorable.”

        Again, we are very different people. Even if I thought that your arguments were perfectly sane and reasonable, I’d still find your compulsion to tell me what I should or should not do to be arrogant and creepy. Honor is earned, not assumed. What evidence have you given me or anyone else that you are an “honorable” person in the first place?

        if an 8 year old girl were able to do that, i’d admire her greatly for the effort, whether successful or not.”

        At least everyone naturally expects a giggling 8 year old girl’s rationale to be immature and unskilled. I surely wouldn’t take advice from one.

      • no, Aphan.
        too much displacement; too many exclamation points; too many impertinent adjectives; too many scare quotes; too many straw men – just too much squid ink.
        go help oliver – he needs a drum major for his parade.

  19. Quote: Many climate adaptation strategies such as sea wall construction and new agricultural practices do more harm than good

    Since when was building a sea wall climate adaption strategy? What agricultural practices have been introduced as a climate adaption strategy?

    I keep asking how the climate in my home town has changed in the last 30 years. Nobody has ever pointed me to comparative information saying what the climate was 30 years ago and what it is now. All I ever get is misdirection and insults.

    • Didn’t anyone ever tell you to “just look out the window!”? I get that one all the time. Looks just like it did 30 years ago here. :)

  20. The journey of Humankind through the Holocene appears to have been a relatively ‘easy’ ride. ‘Natural adaptation’ aided with nous seems to have managed quite well. Were the Holocene to terminate in an Ice Age, the Green chancre would be cured. When NGO (aka UN “Civil Society”) worker drones in academic institutions talk endlessly about axiomatic ‘climate change’ and adapting to it, they mean their new well funded order would be far less difficult were people to simply accept the unadulterated view of the ‘natural order’ of things, promoted by the UN Post-2015 Development Agenda, UNEP divestment policies and the UN Social and Economic Council. They never fail to betray themselves.

  21. With all the money we’ve wasted on the problem of Climate Change already, we could’ve built a bunch of desalinization plants and turned the Sahara desert into the Sahara Oasis. Which, incidentally, would consume far more CO2 than any of the proposed solutions to date.

  22. I think we can be pretty certain that the vast amounts of money being squandered on climate change will leave most people worse off, but some people considerably better off.

  23. “A recent report by the International Monetary Fund estimates global energy subsidies for 2015 at $US5.3 trillion per year …”.
    ================================
    The paper referred to has taken on a life similar to that 97% Cook paper, authored by another Australian sad to say; it is mentioned time and time again by the usual suspects as if it has the authority of the IMF when it clearly carries the disclaimer: “This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF. The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate”.
    Forbes pulls it apart here:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/04/the-imfs-absurd-calculations-of-fossil-fuel-subsidies-its-really-not-2200-for-every-american/#15d12ded73ad

  24. I notice these quacks are referred to as “Dr.” I didn’t realize they gave degrees – doctorates no less, in Stupid.

  25. Here’s a perfect example of the brilliant ideologically motivated plans of eco-tards.
    This is the chosen eco-tard response to the severe Somerset floods of 2014.
    The floods which occurred were not “flash floods” and so this proposed solution has no relevance.
    The floods of 2014 were the result of sustained rainfall and sustained over-topping from drainage channels over a period of two months. Channels which had been allowed to clog with silt over the prior 20 years due to the suspension of dredging works. Which in turn was due to the interference of eco-tards.
    Here in all it’s glory is the brilliant solution offered up by the same bunch of eco-tards who through their own ineptitude caused the 2014 flood. Here it is – leaky dams. That’s their brilliant idea:
    https://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/795946/dd_project_leaflet.pdf

    • “Here in all it’s glory is the brilliant solution offered up by the same bunch of eco-tards who through their own ineptitude caused the 2014 flood. Here it is – leaky dams. That’s their brilliant idea:”

      Stephen Stewandpoutsky says that leakage is bad. Very bad. He will not be happy about this.

      • Lew seems to think that “hiatus” leaked from the skeptics to the climatologists.
        Whereas as a skeptic I would really prefer “plateau”.
        Since a skeptic would not assert that the upward trend was sure to continue once the “plateau” has concluded.
        So, he has is leakage flowing in the wrong direction.
        I think that it was very considerate of us to adopt the word “hiatus” from the warmists who clearly invented it.
        They would have really hated “plateau”.

    • This part made me laugh out loud-
      “Historically-Woody debris dams that occurred naturally were removed because they were believed to
      impair fish migration and cause local flooding.
      Now -We are seeking to reintroduce leaky woody debris, as research has shown that they are essential
      to stream health, for aquatic wildlife and for natural flood management.”

      Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

      • It made me laugh, too.
        I really would like to meet with these people and see if they will let me chop down some trees for them.
        If they are willing to pay me to dump some trees into a brook then I’ll happily take the money.
        Then once I’m paid I’ll use the opportunity to explain to them that the problems of flooding will only be solved not by leaky debris – but by DRAAAAINAGE…
        I’ll tell them this in the style of Daniel Day Lewis.
        That would be the best day of my life:

  26. If governments weren’t squandering money on climate hype and faux “renewable” scams the governments could just do their jobs of taking care of infrastructure.

  27. Don’t even credit the nonsense about fossil fuel subsidies. These are business expenses, depreciation, resource depletion allowances needing funds for replacement to stay in business…..Similar to many resource and manufacturing industries.

    http://oilpro.com/q/675/how-many-people-work-in-the-oil-and-gas-industry-globally

    The industry in the US alone, employed (2011) 2.6million and with direct and indirect impacts, a total 10million Americans. With salaries and benefits plus the value added side of the business, $1.8trillion. This sector pays governments in income taxes ~25% of this, say, $450 Billion.

    In 2014, the United States consumed a total of 6.97 billion barrels of petroleum products, or ~315 billion gallons from which government collected over 50c/gallon or $160Billion more in excise taxes.

    http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=33&t=6

    Now this fuel was used for trucking, air transport, railways, ships and small vehicles in businesses and private citizens going places to buy things, go on holidays, etc. How much is that worth?!!!

    The auto industry makes cars and trucks…….

    I haven’t included gas or coal employment and impact

    What does the Oil industry get out of the sales – well they gross under $40 a barrel today so we’re talking $1.00 gross/gallon. Times are tough these days so their costs must be the best part of that – lets say 75c/gal. although I think it’s more. So their take is about half what the government gets!

    Finally, how much revenue would WWF, Greaspeen and the rest of the multibillion dollar green activist club
    from all this when we return to nature. Don’t be too hasty in your reply

  28. 27 Jan: BBC: Mark Kinver: Climate compensation schemes ‘failing to reach poorest’
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35409903

    solution? pay everyone:

    Global Environment Change: Can REDD+ social safeguards reach the ‘right’ people? Lessons from Madagascar
    Open Access funded by Natural Environment Research Council
    Madagascar has a number of REDD+ pilot projects with World Bank support including the Corridor Ankeniheny-Zahamena (CAZ). Nearly two thousand households around the corridor have been identified as ‘project affected persons’ (PAPs) and given compensation. We compare households identified as project affected persons with those not identified. We found households with more socio-political power locally, those with greater food security, and those that are more accessible were more likely to be identified as eligible for compensation while many people likely to be negatively impacted by the REDD+ project did not receive compensation…
    We suggest that in cases where the majority of households are likely to bear costs and identification of affected households is challenging, the optimal, and principled, strategy may be blanket compensation offered to all the households in affected communities; avoiding the dead weight costs of ineffective safeguard assessments…
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801630005X

  29. Reform Party : Harper will make a return, separation anxiety will be back on the agenda thanks to the Greens. Both Alberta and Saskatchewan outraged, demanding their 10 billion dollars back. The federal government makes equalization payments to less wealthy Canadian provinces like Quebec. The City of Montreal opposes Pipe Line East through Quebec, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will make it so difficult with environmental restriction it will never happen.

  30. All written from their climate adapted buildings with aircon, electricity, man-made gardens of non-native plants and wearing climate adapting clothing.

  31. If they want to protect forests they should be campaigning against bio fuels. The felling of tropical forests to grow palm oil is the major threat to them today. Madagascar is the next big source of Palm Oil with jungle being cleared at an unprecedented rate. The greens seem happy with this but have campaigned against the development of their oil and coal reserves.

  32. “The cost of adaptation to climate change could reach 100 billion per year”. That’s cheap compared to what’s being wasted on renewables.

  33. No one needs to adapt. Adaptation isn’t a strategy. Adapt, or die. It’s not a tactic either. It’s something an organism does or it doesn’t. Live free or die hard :)

  34. “……..while forests in the Congo Basin in Africa are being cleared for agriculture in response to drought.”

    Now that’s rather odd. I could have sworn that people grow more food in response to the need to feed themselves. However, who am I to argue with somebody (Dr. Tara Martin) who has a PhD. LOL.

    Although I do consider myself a conservationist and care about the Earth’s wildlife, people who are way too emotionally wrapped up in the “Save-the-Earth” ideology really make me laugh sometimes with the irrational things that they say.

  35. “……..while forests in the Congo Basin in Africa are being cleared for agriculture in response to drought.”

    Yeah, she’s a bright star ain’t she? But I LOVED the “drought” thing…if there’s enough water in the Congo basin to grow crops with…and water enough to grow forests with…then there can’t be a drought in the Congo basin! Idiots. The problem isn’t drought, it’s poor, unsustainable farming practices on top of an increasing population.

  36. I really must apologise to everyone. Apparently a gigantic amount of stupid was inserted into the UQ water system.

    I will be asking about how an individual who is paid by the Queensland Government can also be a lead researcher for a lobby group. It would be nice to know that his work for the lobby group hasn’t been paid for by the taxpayer. That he identifies himself as a lobbyist first and a University researcher second it a telling point.

  37. Redistributive change and pro-choice/abortion. Capital control and democratic (i.e. human) suppression.

    [???? .mod]

  38. CSIRO and University of Queensland? Oh dear Cane toad, Cook and Lewpaper? Yet another worthless study!!!!

  39. “Intact nature offers best defense against climate change”
    Would this be the same intact nature that has continually produced Ice ages. Oh sorry, perhaps that wouldn’t qualify has true climate change.
    ie: if an ice age occurred and there was no one to observe it would it be CC?

  40. It makes perfect sense to me that intact Nature offers the best defense against climate change. Government policies to change economic performance have a 100% failure rate, because they introduce the use of coercion into what is otherwise a completely voluntary system. It would make sense that the same would be true when government policies try to “force” nature to do something they would like, when no one understands well enough how nature works to know whether: a) The “problem” is really a problem, b) The “solution” will achieve its desired goal, and c) The “desired goals” are actually desirable. It seems like a total crap-shoot to me, without the well-defined odds.

  41. I live in Queensland. On my house block I have a mini rain forest. The green vegetation falls to the ground, and decays.Thats what happens in rain forests. It decays to CO2 and Methane. I think I may produce more CO2 and Methane than any other house in the street.
    If I chopped down the greenery and cemented it over, like they do in the cities, then I would no longer produce so much CO2!

    • Methanogens–methane producing microbes–can only survive in anaerobic environments with a supply of hydrogen or acetic acid to power them.
      The decomposing leaves on the oxygen-rich floor of your rain forest probably don’t produce methane.

  42. “The cost of adaptation to climate change could reach 100 billion per year”

    But we’re already throwing 100 $B away on worthless prevention measure. Why not just jump straight to the end-game, adaptation measures. It could be as much as 100 $B, but will probably be lots less. Lots.

  43. Is plantlife a positive or negative feedback when it comes to c02 and methane? (from decomposition) On one hand plants absorb c02 but as mentioned, if there’s more biomass from increased c02 then the output of methane is increased too.

    Could anyone set me straight on this? Would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

    • The amount of Methane in the atmosphere is tiny ! 1800 parts per BILLION !! That equals 1.8 parts per million..CO2 is about 400 PPM !!

      • However it is far more effective as a greenhouse gas, being about a 100 times better at it according to a source on inet.

        So again, in terms of warming/cooling ratio, I’d like some real, verifiable data if at all possible. There has to be a paper on the effect plants have on temp change or something or is it like the feedback of clouds uncertainty?

        So much of this science is incomplete I do wonder how they could have ever said it’s settled.

        Anywho, thanks for your time on this. Any more data or links to research would be very welcome.

      • CH4 absorbs at frequencies that CO2 and H2O do not that’s why it is claimed CH4 is a “better” GHG than CO2. Of course it is utterly meaningless.

  44. benofhouston at 8.18
    said
    It’s not in the books because there’s nothing to write about. There’s no grand meeting of people trying to implement this plan in your local city council. Any idea is good or bad on it’s own merits. Trying to tie it to this overriding master plan just makes you look crazy. If it’s a good idea who cares if it helps Agenda 21, do it anyway because it’s a good idea. If it’s a bad idea, then shoot it down based on the facts, not due to any connection to a failed conference.

    er?
    then go look up CIGIAR and see how councils ARE targeted and charged…to follow the agenda 21/ millenium development goals..ALL coming from the bloody EUrocrats /ipcc and buddies ideas.
    I kicked up a stink for a couple of yrs about OUR local council dragging us into it
    I see we are now OFF the Cigiar lists of aus councils
    :-)
    ====================
    seperately
    the pratt saying allowing grazing in qld wildrefuge areas?
    well if they dont allow grazing..when the fires go through , and they will.. there wont be a stick standing
    Victoria etc all keep learning this the hard way

  45. Because democrats want to tax us at 70% but we are ‘only’ paying 40% we are all being “subsidized” – shame on us all!

  46. 1) That picture sure looks like second growth
    2) Managed forests provide virtually the same protection from floods and the same wildlife habitat as “intact” forest.
    3) Managed forests provide income to land owners so that the forest is not converted to golf courses or pasture.
    4) If $100 billion/yr must be spent on adaptation, $3Trillion/yr must be spent on prevention (assuming it works) by reducing CO2–does that sound cost-effective?

  47. Intact managed forests are a carbon sink, and a good one. So the “intact” part they got right as long as they understand what “managed” means. Neglecting them under our current way of life (close the roads, keep human-related activity out, snuff any and all lightening strikes to “keep it natural”, etc) would leave them open to catastrophic fire. Allowing cattle in to mimic the natural abundance of grazers, along with controlled burns, logging, etc, is the part they don’t get.

Comments are closed.