Comments on: Global warming’s no longer happening http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2009/03/global-warmings-no-longer-happening/ Bleak theology: hopeful science. Fri, 10 Sep 2010 05:44:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: pukeko http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2009/03/global-warmings-no-longer-happening/comment-page-1/#comment-398 pukeko Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:22:54 +0000 http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/?p=148#comment-398 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. 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.

]]> By: Global Warming http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/2009/03/global-warmings-no-longer-happening/comment-page-1/#comment-397 Global Warming Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:55:25 +0000 http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/?p=148#comment-397 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. 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.

]]>