We have had a cold summer. We have an early autumn. The North has had a cold winter. And Greenpeace bleats about global warming, just as they did about global cooling in the 1970s.
Global warming is not only no longer happening, it is not likely to resume until 2025 or later, if then. So why are we continuing to hear so much doomsaying about climate change?
There are a lot of people in every age who think they know better than everyone else and, therefore, have a right to tell everyone how to live. In the 1950s, it was country-club and parish council busybodies with their strict moral codes. In the 1970s, it was social democrats with their fanciful economic theories. Today, it’s environmentalists.
Yep, it’s about fear and control. Instead of “Let not your hear be troubled…” we are told to be troubled, and make the puritans look like pikers to save the earth.
Which does not need saving.
Combating climate change may not be a question of who will carry the burden but could instead be a rush for the benefits, according to new economic modeling presented at “Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions” hosted by the University of Copenhagen.
Contrary to current cost models for lowering greenhouse gas emissions and fighting climate change, a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conclude that even very stringent reductions of can create a macroeconomic benefit, if governments go about it the right way.
“Where many current calculations get it wrong is in the assumption that more stringent measures will necessarily raise the overall cost, especially when there is substantial unemployment and underuse of capacity as there is today”, explains Terry Barker, Director of Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge and a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Congress.
I agree that minimal changes, adapting to how climate changes — over each decate — are sensible. I also think we have done this anyway: for example living in Arizona and cooling your house 10 degrees uses less energy than living in Ontario and heating your house 30 degrees.
However, I spend too much time working with statistics packages and models: this makes me fairly cynical about any models of climate, let alone any economic models based on climate.