Of course if you lay out economic possibilities with the premise that there is Climate Change, you will naturally go astray. First of all, you have to PROVE that there is Climate Change and to what degree BEFORE you can honestly venture into that realm, otherwise it is totally biased and without merit. This is truly an example of putting the cart before the horse.
Linny, "But, of course, there's little argument among scientists." Yes, I agree with you for once. Most true scientists know that CC, AGW, Climate Disruption, or even an imminent Ice Age are bogus and based upon bad science (BS).
Quote by Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”
Quote by Martin Keeley, geology scientist: “Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.”
Quote by Eduardo Tonni, paleontologist, Committee for Scientific Research, Argentina: “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.”
I have a whole lot more, if you want. Get yourself into the real world.
"Ward, who has also published his concerns over Tol’s work in a series of blogposts, said the IPCC did not subject the Sussex University professor’s contributions to proper scrutiny during discussions earlier this year."
Let me think, if a spokesman paid by the billionaire Kochs rubbished a professor of anything the warmies would be up in arms because he is not qualified to make such pronouncements and he would be a paid shill.
Why do they not complain when the billionaire is Jeremy Grantham? Oh, I know, it is because he is "on message".
To remove any doubt, Bob Ward, who is ubiquitous on the BBC, is Grantham's attack dog. He attacks anyone with whom his master disagrees. He works for an institute that was created and financed by his master.
Interestingly, in 2011 prices, Grantham manages a fund that has invested over $1.4 billion in oil!
In a sane and rational world, how could Bob Ward who studied zoology and be paid by a billionaire activist be allowed to rubbish an economics professor while an ex-chancellor of the UK, who just might know more economics than Ward, is not welcome on the BBC to make any points at all?
"Tol used his position as an IPCC lead author to allow his own research to dominate the chapter he was charged with editing."
A clear bias from Bob Ward. And yes, he is an alarmist to the nth degree. Bob is clearly ignoring WG I and authors there doing the same or worse, getting buddies to be reviewers. Bias, bias, bias, hypocrite...
Richard Tol is not toeing the party line. This makes him a target for biased attack dogs like Bob Ward.
Update: I follow Richard Tol on Twitter and he is not amused:
Richard Tol @RichardTol ・ 2h
I dare @rtcc_edking of @RTCCclimatenews to release an unedited copy of his interview with me on 31 July
Richard Tol @RichardTol ・ 3h
Promise to self: All interviews must be recorded. I retain the right to publish the full interview. #sickofactivistsposingasjournalists
Sagebrush: "Ha! Ha! "climate change economists"? Ha! Ha! What does an economist have to do with science?"
Nothing.
But, of course, there's little argument among scientists.
The argument today is among politicians, and their economic advisers.
It is a clear bias. Alarmists tend to think they are right and others who disagree with them or are skeptical of their claims are biased and they are simply correct and knowledgeable. They base everything on what others have said and reported and much of that is distorted and biased and it feeds on itself. Pretty soon you have a pile of (I was going to say something else) information that is on one side of the argument and that is all they will look at.
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/08/01/leading-climate-economist-accused-of-distorting-research/
" ... An advisor to the climate sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) campaign group, Tol is one of the highest profile climate economists in the world. Earlier this year he made headlines ahead of the IPCC Working Group 2 launch in Yokohoma after he branded its conclusions alarmist, and declined to be named on the headline Summary for Policymakers document. ... "
" ... He also suggested Tol used his position as an IPCC lead author to allow his own research to dominate the chapter he was charged with editing. “What he has done I think would constitute an abuse of the IPCC process,” Ward said. Despite Ackerman’s allegations, Tol said he has no plans to release an official response or take legal action. “There is nothing here to respond to,” he said. “This is essentially a baiting exercise to provoke me into suing him”. ... "
