Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Two separate studies have appeared recently claiming that climate will increase income inequality. In my opinion, both studies contradict readily observable evidence.
The first press release;
Study: Climate change damages US economy, increases inequality
Unmitigated climate change will make the United States poorer and more unequal, according to a new study published in the journal Science. The poorest third of counties could sustain economic damages costing as much as 20 percent of their income if warming proceeds unabated.
States in the South and lower Midwest, which tend to be poor and hot already, will lose the most, with economic opportunity traveling northward and westward. Colder and richer counties along the northern border and in the Rockies could benefit the most as health, agriculture and energy costs are projected to improve.
Overall, the study—led by Solomon Hsiang of the University of California, Berkeley, Robert Kopp of Rutgers University-New Brunswick, Amir Jina of the University of Chicago, and James Rising, also of UC Berkeley—projects losses, economic restructuring and widening inequality.
“Unmitigated climate change will be very expensive for huge regions of the United States,” said Hsiang, Chancellor’s Associate Professor of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. “If we continue on the current path, our analysis indicates it may result in the largest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich in the country’s history.”
…
Read more: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-climate-economy-inequality.html
The second press release;
As the rich move away from disaster zones, the poor are left behind
By Leah Platt Boustan, Maria Lucia Yanguas, Matthew Kahn, and Paul W. Rhode
on Jul 1, 2017 6:00 am
Cross-posted from the Conversation
Every year, major earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes occur. These natural disasters disrupt daily life and, in the worst cases, cause devastation. Events such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy killed thousands of people and generated billions of dollars in losses.
There is also concern that global climate change will increase the frequency and intensity of weather–related disasters.
Our research team wanted to know how disasters affect people’s decisions to move in or out of particular areas. We created a new database that covers disasters in the United States from 1920 to 2010 at the county level, combining data from the American Red Cross as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its predecessors.
Our work shows that people move away from areas hit by the largest natural disasters, but smaller disasters have little effect on migration. The data also showed that these trends may worsen inequality in the U.S., as the rich move away from disaster-prone areas, while the poor are left behind.
…
Read more: http://grist.org/article/as-the-rich-move-away-from-disaster-zones-the-poor-are-left-behind/
The abstract of the first study;
Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States
Solomon Hsiang, Robert Kopp, Amir Jina, James Rising, Michael Delgado, Shashank Mohan, D. J. Rasmussen, Robert Muir-Wood, Paul Wilson, Michael Oppenheimer, Kate Larsen, Trevor Houser
Estimates of climate change damage are central to the design of climate policies. Here, we develop a flexible architecture for computing damages that integrates climate science, econometric analyses, and process models. We use this approach to construct spatially explicit, probabilistic, and empirically derived estimates of economic damage in the United States from climate change. The combined value of market and nonmarket damage across analyzed sectors—agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor—increases quadratically in global mean temperature, costing roughly 1.2% of gross domestic product per +1°C on average. Importantly, risk is distributed unequally across locations, generating a large transfer of value northward and westward that increases economic inequality. By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20% of county income (90% chance) under business-as-usual emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5).
Read more: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362
The abstract of the second study;
The Effect of Natural Disasters on Economic Activity in US Counties: A Century of Data
Leah Platt Boustan, Matthew E. Kahn, Paul W. Rhode, Maria Lucia Yanguas
NBER Working Paper No. 23410
Issued in May 2017
NBER Program(s): DAE EEE
Major natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy cause numerous fatalities, and destroy property and infrastructure. In any year, the U.S experiences dozens of smaller natural disasters as well. We construct a 90 year panel data set that includes the universe of natural disasters in the United States from 1920 to 2010. By exploiting spatial and temporal variation, we study how these shocks affected migration rates, home prices and local poverty rates. The most severe disasters increase out migration rates and lower housing prices, especially in areas at particular risk of disaster activity, but milder disasters have little effect.
Read more (paywalled): http://www.nber.org/papers/w23410
What do I mean when I suggest both studies contradict observable evidence?
Ask one question – how do cities cope with hot weather, sudden deluges and extreme storms, in places where such phenomena are already a regular part of life? Places like the tropical coastal cities of my native Queensland?
The answer of course is the civic infrastructure of tropical cities is built to cope with the scale of events which are expected. The storm drains are built with much larger pipes, to easily cope with deluges on a scale which would severely flood most US cities. This is simply a matter of digging up the old pipes, and replacing them with larger pipes, next time the drains are repaired. The frames, walls and roofs of houses are built to resist cyclones, hail and extreme downpours – most of the roofs of working class houses in my area, including my house, are made of inexpensive heavy duty sheet steel. Such protection can be inexpensively retrofitted to houses at risk from storm damage – steel bracing to strengthen inadequate house frames, cheap steel roofs to increase protection from storm damage. Rich people sometimes choose tile roofs for aesthetic reasons – but they have more money to pay for roof repairs.
In severe cases, people in low lying areas are evacuated if a cyclone or other extreme event threatens, with well rehearsed evacuation plans. The government steps in to help repair usually very localised extreme storm damage. Even a near miss turns a tropical cyclone into an inconvenience rather than a disaster, if your local infrastructure is built to cope with extreme weather.
I am not suggesting that tropical cities get it right every time. 35 people died in the 2011 Queensland floods, a weather event so extreme it is believed to have caused global sea level to temporarily drop by 7mm. But this is far fewer deaths than the 1245 people who died due to Hurricane Katrina – a disaster which was reportedly exacerbated by poor planning and incompetence.
Incompetence which costs lives only prevails while it remains hidden. Queensland authorities are not inherently more competent than Louisiana authorities. We have our share of public scandals and crooked land planning decisions. But severe weather in Queensland is a regular occurrence. If severe deluges or other weather events were to become more common in the USA, the people would demand solutions – and those solutions are not difficult to implement. If all else failed, the USA would simply hire top civic engineers from tropical cities to help upgrade US infrastructure, to provide US citizens with the same kind of storm resilience as people who live in tropical cities already enjoy today.
Deaths from extreme weather have decreased by up to 95% since the 1920s- that is some trend-
http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.pdf
Note the narrative is changing. It is usually stated as fact that there will be ” increase the frequency and intensity ” of violent storms or that it is already happening “here and now”. Now it morphing to a “concern”. A more reasonable position.
Rowing back is going to take a long time but it is beginning
That link to WP sources the claim from the Guardian which cites a Falluso paper in GRL. The Guardian quotes him as saying rainfall in Queensland was “300mm above the usual rate”. First of all 300mm is not a “rate” , there is no time element given. Falluso does not know much about science.
So if 300mm over Q’land ’caused’ 7mm drop world wide that must mean that the surface of Q’land is 1/42 of the total area of the worlds oceans.
I can call BS on that claim without even looking it up but let’s go:
Queensland Area: 1.853 million km²
Global oceans Area: 361.9 million km²
361.9 / 1.853 = 195.30 cf 42 !
He has exaggerated by a factor of five.
So Falluso makes this obviously stupid claim without even doing the most basic fact check to see whether it is credible.
Tried to check out the abstract of Falluso paper but it looks like Wiley has been hit by ransomware attack:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50834/abstract
“We apologize for any inconvenience and we are working to bring the site back online as soon as possible.”
To Greg
Try again, abstract and full paper available now.
Never consider that he was misquoted about the 300mm.
Interesting that you apparently trust the media.
To Richard:
Thank you for the link.
This article by Indur Goklany: Deaths and death rates from extreme weather events: 1900-2008 is available for download from your link. He is the author of several articles and books.
Every visitor here should read this article, published in 2009.
Here are the final conclusions:
“Finally, despite population increases, over the long term
cumulative mortality from extreme weather events has declined both
globally and for the United States, even as total (all-cause) mortality
has increased. This indicates that humanity is coping better with
extreme weather events than with far more important health and
safety problems.
Many environmentalists and like-minded politicians have
proposed the expenditure of trillions of dollars to reduce
anthropogenic greenhouse gases. One stated rationale is to forestall
hypothetical future increases in mortality from global warming induced
increases in extreme weather events projected by questionable
climate models.
The result would be to diminish, if not curtail, the
economic development and hydrocarbon-fueled technology that has
resulted in enormous actual reductions in such mortality.
In contrast, human well-being could be greatly improved by
devoting much smaller sums to alleviating the health and safety
problems responsible for most premature mortality (see Table 2).”
Solid data presented to support the above.
Man-made disasters like the political, economic, business climate in California certainly can be blamed for the change from massive in-migration to out-migration. “CEOs commented that these Silicon Valley companies tend to avoid expanding locally.” from a CEO survey of companies around the country. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/27/california-wins-worst-state-to-do-business-for-11th-year/)
And New York came in second worse and both are touting “sanctuary cities”. What’s that tell you about Democrat/Liberal/Progressive/Socialist run governments? Both will be happy once they destroy the Capitalist economy that made them what they are today. I’m betting California wins that race to the bottom.
And a significant part of that is better typhoon preparedness, evacuations and shelters in Bangladesh, the Philippines, etc.
Many fewer people have died in recent severe storms (are they hurricanes or typhoons in that region?) in the Bay of Bengal, even though the storm severity has been no less. Why? Better countermeasures.
Many claims you made.
Please support with links providing the data to support your claims.
As if higher energy prices and fossil fuel starvation don’t hit the poor harder.
Few of the millions of excess winter deaths are among the rich.
Energy poverty won’t apparently, what an idiotic article. As you note, being too poor to afford high energy prices ain’t exactly good for the poor either, deaths by freezing if you can’t afford heating oil, gas, or electricity don’t hit the rich. But then, it’s an excuse to tax the rich, to take care of the poor, all the while keeping just a nominal handling fee as we take the money from one group and give it to the other.
End of the world coming, poor and minorities hardest hit!
Those SJW types don’t miss a lick.
…..Just how much, do you reckon, is being added to the prices that the rest of us pay for medical treatment and other healthcare services by the taxes and fees that are levied on higher income medical doctors and other healthcare professionals who are producing and providing the services by our too numerous, too large and too costly governments? Is it our healthcare that so many can no longer afford or is it our governments who are no longer affordable? Or, is it maybe both with the costs of each being recycled into and driving up the costs and the prices that we are paying for the other? The here we go loop-ta-loop.
ThomasJK
That sounds like a sensible reader’s plea for smaller government.
I, too, hope. Greatly.
Auto
I agree…what is hitting the poor the hardest is the policies put in place by those who promote climate alarmism.
Massive amounts of tax dollars are spent on wasteful intermittent generation devices, and then policies are put in place which replaces inexpensive sources with very costly ones.
The net effect is a double hit to the poor and the middle class, who are forced to spend a larger amount of their incomes on basic survival, and on taxes to pay for the wasteful spending.
We should all keep in mind that if the previous US administration had their way, their would have been no fracking boom and subsequent downward pressure on natural gas and oil prices.
Their intransigence on the permitting of new pipelines was yet another way they sought to limit the flow of oil and gas to the markets, putting further upward pressure on energy prices.
It is not climate change that hits the poor hardest…it is the policies put in place by the climate liars that do that.
Adding CO2 to the air has put downward pressure on food prices by increasing yields, and if temperatures grew warmer, that would have the effect of lowering energy bills for a large percentage of the people in the developed world…since they spend so much money on winter heat.
As usual with warmistas…the truth is the exact opposite of what they claim.
Absolutely — there is no greater threat to income inequality than those who seek to extort trillions from the poor to pad their own coffers.
From “Energy Poverty Is Much Worse for the Poor Than Climate Change”
http://reason.com/archives/2016/11/25/energy-poverty-is-much-worse-for-the-poo
“Current renewable sources of energy are not technologically capable of lifting hundreds of millions of people out of energy poverty. Consequently, the Breakthrough writers see “no practical path to universal access to modern levels of energy consumption” that keeps the projected increase in global average temperature below the Paris Agreement on climate change goal of 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level. … “forcing poor people to forego economic development in order to prevent climate change is a “morally dubious proposition.” They additionally observe that the wealth and technology produced by economic growth increases resilience to climatic extremes and other natural disasters. When bad weather encounters poverty, disaster ensues.
“Lifting all of humanity out of energy poverty does increase the risk of catastrophic climate change impacts to some unknowable degree,” concludes the Breakthrough Institute report. “But it is untenable morally and practically to insist that global climate change targets be balanced upon the backs of the poorest people on earth.”
These quotes are developed from the report https://thebreakthrough.org/images/pdfs/Energy_for_Human_Development.pdf written by Ted Nordhaus (among others)
Menicholas
blockquote>“ It is not climate change that hits the poor hardest…it is the policies put in place by the climate liars that do that.”
Right you are, the WV Legislature, after several weeks of wrangling during extended Special Sessions, at extra costs of several hundred thousands of dollars, to pass a Budget, increased taxes on goods and services that will “hit the poor the hardest”.
Exactly. There’s a word missing from the claim. It should read:
” Climate alarmism will hit Poor People harder than Rich People”.
Chris
On the same track I would have said ‘Reckless Spending on the Red Herring of Climate Change’ will hit poor people harder….
And another contributor above got it right when he said ‘Government is now unaffordable’, never mind anything else.
The academic-government-Green industrial complex rob from the poor to give to the rich and themselves. While also killing them.
CACA sc@msters rival Pol Pot as mass and serial murderers. Let their lo@x continue and they’ll move into the same class as H!tler, Stalin, Mao and Hirohito, although maybe will never make it to Rachel Carson’s level of mass murder.
Climate change will hit “Everywhere” harder than “rest of world”
Climate will hit the poor harder than the rich
≠≠≠==========
The rich need to do their historic part and hit the poor harder. The complaints about climate will dry up pretty quickly.
…..The hardest (and the most blows) to the well-being of everyone — rich and poor — are being delivered by our too numerous, too large and too costly governments.
This is all a round-about way of saying Trump voters will be hardest hit.
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/20161219_clinton.jpg
I was raised in the rural, inland portion of Northern California, not far from where Anthony lives. Those counties all gave Trump a majority or plurality, as well as above-average votes for the Libertarian ticket.
People living in fly-over America are tough and self-reliant. Although the idea of more extreme weather from global warming is another hoax, people in such areas fare a lot better in disasters than ones in urban areas. So you’ll have to look somewhere else for your schadenfreude
“So you’ll have to look somewhere else for your schadenfreude”
Are you talking to me? If so, get a grip.
What you said sounds a lot like “hoisted with one’s own petard.” This is something that the CAGW people have done in their propaganda.
If that’s not what you meant, you could clarify your intent and I could apologize.
Ralph, You could just apologize, because his point was totally valid and bona fide. Washington based rich elites, aka Democrats, don’t care about fly-over America. They once a while mention poor people for the purpose of making an impression, but poor people for them are not the self-reliant people at the countryside. What they think when they say “poor people” is more like a minority representative, latin or black single mom, possibly gay, unemployed for sure, or employed in those low-paid jobs that are typical to lowly educated Americans.
That Trump people are hardest hit by Democrats, is no wonder. When Democrats say “the poor people are hardest hit”, it is not because of climate change, but the coming taxing change by Democrats. It were funny if the poorest were not hardest hit by their unintended consquences. If they are unintended. Somehow I think hitting Trumpland is not unintended.
Hugs said: “Washington based rich elites, aka Democrats, don’t care about fly-over America.”
Let’s look at policy and parties.
1) Who broke unions and pushed for right to work laws, which over the last 30 years has caused the % of the workforce that is unionized to plunge? Reagan.
2) Republicans for decades have championed free trade as a cure-all for economic growth (and Dems came along starting with Clinton).
3) The ACA has brought health insurance to 20M more people, including many of the working poor.
4) Republicans have fought against any increase in the minimum wage.
Republican economic policies have been far more damaging to fly over America than Democratic economic policies.
1) What role did Big Union play in bankrupting railroads, auto manufacturers, airlines and, now, government?
2) How many jobs has international trade created? One example is new auto jobs in the South. How many in Detroit (see 1), above)?
3) How many insurance companies are exiting the exchanges? Has not Obamacare been cumulatively failing since its inception?
4) Minimum wage laws destroy jobs when overreaching. Nobody attempts to support a family on minimum wages as they exist. See what is happening to entry level jobs in the Democratic Party-controlled cities that have overreached with high minimum wage jobs.
“Ralph, You could just apologize, because his point was totally valid and bona fide.”
OK Hugs, if he genuinely was motivated by compassion for the poor, I apologize.
Get a grip… full quote:
What is so difficult to understand? Preemptive offence?
If climate disasters don’t happen, nobody is going to get hit hardest. And the threat to low income people is government policies that raise regressive taxes to implement policies that won’t accomplish anything worthwhile. If Trump follows through on his promises, his voters will do a lot better than they would if he had lost. That’s not difficult to understand.
Dave Fair said:
1) What role did Big Union play in bankrupting railroads, auto manufacturers, airlines and, now, government?
Certainly unions in the 70s and 80s overplayed their hand. But a far bigger factor was deregulation.
2) How many jobs has international trade created? One example is new auto jobs in the South. How many in Detroit (see 1), above)?
Actually, you have it backwards. When BMW builds a plant in SC, that has nothing to do with free trade agreements. It is done for 4 reasons 1) eliminate currency impacts on costs 2) to build goodwill in the largest auto market in the world 3) US labor costs are cheaper than those in Germany (and that is true in Detroit as well) 4) so that they won’t be adversely impacted if the US puts up trade barriers. So you have it exactly backwards.
3) How many insurance companies are exiting the exchanges? Has not Obamacare been cumulatively failing since its inception?
What does cumulatively failing mean? The fact that 20M people who did not have health care now do? Rather than take steps to fix the ACA, Republicans would rather kick 20M people off their health insurance.
4) Minimum wage laws destroy jobs when overreaching. Nobody attempts to support a family on minimum wages as they exist. See what is happening to entry level jobs in the Democratic Party-controlled cities that have overreached with high minimum wage jobs.
If it is overreached, I agree. But look at the flip side – most of the poorest states are in the South, which has the lowest minimum wages in the country, on average. Explain the logic of your position as it relates to that.
I’ve answer your questions, now it’s your turn. Tell me 4 good things that Republicans have done in terms of legislation for working class people.
1) Who broke the unions? The unions broke the unions by being greedy and killing the companies they worked for. Right to work laws benefit workers.
2) Free trade isn’t a cure-all, but it does benefit everybody.
3) You really do believe your left wing propaganda. There never was 20M people without health care and more people have lost their health care because it’s more expensive than have been added to the roles.
4) The minimum wage hurts everyone. It doesn’t help poor people. The only thing that happens when the minimum wage goes up is that union wages increase, and poor people get fired.
The ‘islands’ have an eerie resemblance to metastasizing tumors…..
It’s “The Clinton Archipelago”.
Just another attempt of disinformation for the public. The desperation is thick.
We are close to halfway to the so called 2 C danger point, and there are no discernible changes in weather patterns, nor in any critical climatic parameter. And don’t give me Arctic ice, glaciers, SLR, etc. B.S. There is nothing alarming going on.
I assume that bad weather just doesn’t jump up out of nowhere at a particular point. We should be seeing negative impacts developing as temperatures rise. We don’t. Nothing unusual is happening.
There is actually a noticeable decline in bad weather events, if anything.
Weather related catastrophes have been around for millennia. Way before selective university grants pushed them into the limelight.
Real mortalities from extreme weather events would include those tens of thousands of UK elderly folks who died of the cold last and previous winters. Not new, invented weather extremes, but simply lack affordable coal-fired energy.
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/latest-news/excess-winter-deaths-are-a-chilling-reminder-of-how-the-cold-affects-older-people/
Hmmm… Increased atmospheric CO2 concurrent with good climate change. I like this development.
Whenever I contemplate the benefits of more atmospheric CO2 increasing the productivity of the photosynthetic base of the pyramid of life, I think of the benefits to the billions of poor farmers who will benefit. Then, I am reminded of those words from 2010 (Space Odyssey Two) “Something wonderful is going to happen.”
Didn’t something happen with a hole in Uranus in that film?
No, but Jupiter imploded into a star.
Meanwhile, NASA does want to probe Uranus in search of gas.
Thank goodness NASA is getting back to its original mandate. NASA doing climate science is like a doctor probing Uranus,
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/nasa-wants-probe-uranus-search-gas-232157525.html
I would hop they are using long range sensing equipment when doing these probes of, um, that planet.
I am so glad they are finally changing the name of that planet.
and Roy Shnieder is gonna need a bigger space ship.
Expensive energy which is unreliable such as wind farms and solar farms, make energy expensive for the poor.
Traditional energy power plants such as coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear are much cheaper in the long run.
Cheaper energy is what made this country (the good old USA) prosperous, and can do it again if it is allowed to.
I support getting rid of wind and solar. Solar is good for calculators and watches and small appliances. Maybe wind would be good for pumping oil out of the ground…I can’t see that solar will keep your refrigerator, freezer, or electric stove, heat pump, or AC going for 24/7.
I vote for cheap energy to fight the effects of extreme weather, (or if you want to call it climate change), cheap energy does a better job of rectifying or preventing it, by building prevention tactics such as dikes, and stronger buildings, etc.
Wind and solar farms still rely on high subsidies/taxes and expensive backup systems to keep them goin.
…to keep them going.
There may never be a way to inexpensively store electricity for use at night and when there is no wind.
Wind in particular seems like a good idea until you look at the numbers (cost, life of the unit, down time, etc) and the bird deaths.
Oh, and the noise.
And the eyesore factor.
And the land use.
And the strain on the grid.
And…
I agree Philip.
See especially points #8, 9 and 10 below.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/13/presentation-of-evidence-suggesting-temperature-drives-atmospheric-co2-more-than-co2-drives-temperature/
Observations and Conclusions:
…
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA and about 10,000 in Canada.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, P.Eng. Calgary, June 12, 2015
Griff – you are a chronic source of misinformation.
Everyone should just ignore you.
UK bills are lower than in 2008, though we have more renewables.
German bills are lower, as they use less electricity.
Greens make electricity too expensive to use, and then celebrate when the poor stop using it.
Bills are lower …
CHARGES are lower. Up front affordability (un-affordability) credit/waivers for an increased number of “poor” buyers are up significantly as well.
Tell us there is no correlation.
Eric
Typo?
” steal bracing to strengthen inadequate house frames, cheap steel “
Fixed, thanks Ian
Still, on the other hand, we must make use of what is available.
I don’t know about the climate, but idiotic responses and policies like increasing fuel and energy costs wil certainly hit the poor hardest as it uses up much more of their money as a percentage. Thousands of the poor and aged will die of cold quite needlessly..
“The elderly are useless eaters”.
– Henry Kissinger
Few respectable climate scientists claim that it is possible, at present, to predict regional weather/climate very far into the future, from what I can tell. I may no be( am not) included in that group of experts, but I regularly follow the CPC’s climate(weather, actually) prognostications, and even out only a week or so, they can be at best, approximations – even if the models have improved.. The seasonal predictions for specific areas are even more of a turkey shoot and sometimes 180 out. Yet the alarmists try to claim accuracy out to 100 years!
Notice they use regional down-scaling from the global models. Proven to have no accuracy at all.
GCMs are worthless.
Plain and simple.
That’s really a good tact to use with people. Climate is simply trends in weather phenomena, so if weather forecasters can’t accurately predict temperature within 2 degrees two weeks out using models, what credibility can they possibly have predicting a 2 degree rise in temperature two decades out using models.
It’s a variation on a familiar theme: “World to end! Women and children to be hit the hardest.”
That first study was published in Science mag, and declared the US South will be hit the hardest. Four reasons not to trust that claim:
First of all, this comes from model projections, not from observed temperatures and precipitation.
Secondly, all forecasting was done using the worst-case IPCC scenario.
Thirdly the models show no skill at all at regional forecasting, never mind their deficiencies at the global scale.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Adaptation by humans is not allowed.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/07/01/climate-scare-in-us-south/
There is a great tradition in the United States of America. If you’re not happy where you are, you can move and maybe find a better place. link
Are these studies assuming a static population?
“Unmitigated climate change will make the United States poorer and more unequal, according to a new study published in the journal Science. The poorest third of counties could sustain economic damages costing as much as 20 percent of their income if warming proceeds unabated.”
What warming? Here they are again assuming facts not in evidence and then forecasting about the future based on an unproven speculation about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere.
But they did say “IF” so I’ll give them that. Using “if” won’t make them look so dumb when this predicted CAGW warming doesn’t come to pass.
All the CAGW claims like this should have a big “IF” featured prominently at the beginning, so as not to mislead the public. IF CAGW is real, then. . . Do it that way and at least you will be being honest about the situation.
NOAA reports that 123.3 million people live on the coastlines of the USA. That number is to increase by 8% by 2020. If the NOAA and climate change scientists really believe their own predictions, why aren’t they creating programs to discourage the population from living near the coastlines? Maybe the authors of the studies could come up with a means test that only allows “rich” people to live on the coast, exposing them to the harsher realities of climate change and thereby balance out the hard hitting inequalities that they note in their study.
that could work out if the government would also stop subsidizing flood insurance.
I whole-heartily agree. At the same time do away with subsidized loans to support rebuilding in the exact same location.
LIke no Caribbean islands exist….I guess they think if people are too close to the shore….they can just move to the other side of the island
Latitude: if they do that, according to one Democrat Congressman, the island would tip over.
Jeff. There are and have been in place dicouranging policys for living in costal areas in place for a long time. It is called high real estate prices and taxes. I liked living near the southern California coast with it’s great weather. I did tire of living like a refuge because of my income didn’t support the lifestyle I had been accustomed to.
James Francisco, yes I realize that. However, Gulf coast states don’t have nearly that problem – especially those located below sea level. By the way I have a “refugee” friend who lives on the beach in San Diego and says pretty much the same thing as you have experienced.
The cost of the Looney Left’s so-called “mitigation” will dwarf this dubious study’s economic effect while, at the best, reducing this supposed expense by less than 5%. Even if the warmists are right, which I find most unlikely, Carbon reduction is the most expen$ive and least effective method of dealing with this issue.
Yes. It’s beyond parody.
Unless a mistake from my part, both sides of the argument seem to agree an infinitesimally small fraction of the outside air composition doesn’t drive the weather.
But somehow, in the prognosticating computer programmes of the anointed, it turns into a planetary, multidecadal climate controlling knob. If there really were a fortune telling software, why not use it for resolving world poverty directly?
Why many of the climate apocalypse prognosticators buy oceanfront properties instead? Even in hot places well-known for seasonal storms, such as Caribbean, Indian and Pacific islands? They should know better. Or perhaps the smartest already do, but haven’t found a better way to communicate the absurdity than to demonstrate it.
Climate Migration – Snowbelt To Sunbelt
With such climate “doom”, why are people moving AWAY from the NorthEast States and TO the South and West???
Americans Are Moving South, West Again January 08, 2016 By Tim Henderson PEW
I wonder what the full tally is of tax credits taken by the rich in the past 10 years for wind, solar, electric cars, hybrid cars, and now integrated solar homes with batteries and electric cars. Recall that tax credits are a direct subtraction of tax owed and the perfect end around to bypass the Alternative Minimum Tax that limits deductions claimed. That was also created by Dems.
We are subsidizing the rich at the expense of the poor. This article is attempting to put a veil in front of our eyes.
Basing a study on RCP 8.5 happening? That is about as likely as Louisiana not suffering more from political incompetence than the real effects of hurricane Katrina.
Just another good reason not to be poor, not that anybody needed one.
Yes, manipulate the poor and give them free phones to buy votes. They won’t do the audits on the program to find that half did not qualify based on income until you leave office anyway.
This is another rendition of the redistribution of wealth formula embedded in the Waxman-Markey carbon tax bill. They never give up in Berkeley and Oakland.
They get one thing right – the rich do move away from disaster zones, leaving the poor behind.
Brace yourselves, my fellow “flyovers” – the steady stream of rich Leftist refugees from economic disaster zones like California, New York, Illinois, etc. is set to turn into a flood over the next few years.
Let’s consider that Al Gore owns a whole lot of expensive coastal real estate. He obviously has a dog in this race and my guess is he’d like you and I to pay for a sea wall around his vacation homes?
This reminds me of a joke from years ago: A NY Times headline states in bold letters, “Earth to be destroyed by asteroid.” The byline then states, “Poor people and minorities to be hit hardest.”
I heard it “women and minorities”. But it’s still funny.
Climate change was there in the past, climate change is there now and climate change will be there in future. Unplanned urbanization making poor poorer, rich richer. Here the human greed is the primary cause for intensifying a extreme weather even impact. This is more so in developing countries where laws help them to violate. Rich are moving to the coasts and hilly areas and to get livelihood poor also moving to coasts and hilly areas.
Decades back WMO published a document on natural disasters and impact on humans.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
In my city of Hyderabad, states one-third population live. Everyday tens of people die in road accidents. Most of the TV channels blare these events. Diesel truck over turned and engulfed with file killing more than 150 people. Even in pilgrimage hundreds of people are dying every year.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy