I think we're paying for climate change already in direct quantifiable terms. Local government rates include a fire levy and it appears in future we may all pay a flood levy, the financial kind not the earthworks. Some of the current food price rises could be attributed to extreme weather events, either too much or too little rain. Insurance premiums could rise for residents in hazard prone areas even if those hazards are slow (eg coastal erosion) or infrequent like fire.

Another multiplier effect is the way more difficult farming conditions could combine with more expensive farm inputs like fuel and fertiliser. Conceivably the combination could reach a sudden tipping point making grocery bills unaffordable. People may have less money for travel and entertainment so those industries will suffer. Another cost is illegal immigration triggered by climate change. Therefore in evaluating climate change costs we should look at possible cascading effects.

People who have lost

Their lives, homes and livelihoods

Are already paying

We need to remember that "climate change" is shorthand for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming justifying policy action".

The supposed evidence for this proposition depends on an entire industry, or empire, of government-funded technicians and other interested dependants, who freely manipulate, destroy, misrepresent and lie about the data to try get whatever results they want.

The proof that it is an irrational belief system is that any weather or climate event whatsoever is taken as proof. If the weather is especially hot, or especially cold, or drought, or rain, the climate alarmists claim this is proof of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming justifying policy action.

Anyone who has ever used a spreadsheet will have some idea how bodgy are the computer models used by the parasite class to bodge up the results they want.

But even if they were conceded, all that would tell us is that there is a trend that temperatures are going up. So what? Al Gore has long since confessed the lie to his hockey stick graph, which governments all over the world are still indoctrinating children with.

There is no basis for the wild claims that any given weather event is proof of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming justifying policy action; a method which the gnostic warmists themselves abnegate. But the fact is, the people making these claims are not gods or superhumans, and they simply don't know, and cannot calculate, what would be the economic costs or benefits either way.

But we do know that the effect of all these policy measures will be to greatly curtail production including food production, by diverting scarce resources into expensive green toys and corrupt boondoggles for the elite in the financial sector, at a time when there are food shortages.

Perhaps if all the money now going into climate junketing, redistribution and corruption, were to go for productive purposes that actually satisfy human needs?

There is no proof that climate variability is any different now to what it was in the 20th Century.
TV broadcasting is more intensive and we now see devastating events as they happen (or in the case of overseas, shortly after) whereas we either never saw them at all or on the Newsreels at the cinema.
Events worldwide now happen and are fed to us instantly. They don't happen more frequently. Even the IPCC does not claim an increase in frequency.

The storms and floodings (both riverine and from the sea) of the little ice age are known to have been more devastating and dramatic than the list cited this article. But even if you assume temperatues will increase and more extreme events will occur, the economics still don't not add up to doing anything. You also have to assume a very low rediscount (investment) rate when calculating the present value of future damage.

Stern had to do all of the above plus a few other assumptions to make the economic case add up to doing something. Garnaut msanaged to get around this problem of the economic case just not adding up by making another, extreme assumption.. sorry, no case..

Articles on climate change always seem to bring out those waiting for 100% absolute proof of the link between fossil fuel burning, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and climate change. Even 95% probability it seems just isn't enough for them. For these people as long as there is even the tiniest possibility that explanations and linkages might not be 100% right then there is no need to take action.

It would be nice if there was another Earth out there that could act as a "control" - exactly the same as our Earth but with no fossil fuel burning so that we could compare their climate with ours and come to our conclusions.

As there isn't I am left wondering what evidence and how much evidence would actually persuade these people? This would be a good question for Peter, Phoenix94 and Curmudgeon to think about.

The desire for absolute certainty before acting exists with all people in all walks of life in all aspects of life. However some maturity is required to accept that we have to instead rely on the aggregation of evidence from different sources, or even balance of probabilities, and at some point agree that we have enough evidence to justify action. For climate change for me and many others, that point came long ago not least because the risks are so large.

In writing this I am not expecting any converts on this forum any time soon, because I am reminded of the following: "People's belief systems are changeable, but this process is complicated and is usually triggered by introspective interrogation and critical thinking, not by external correction and imposition of views".

The complexity of this issue and the level of disagreement on the numbers are both well demonstrated in this article. However it skims over the critical threshold matter, which is the reluctance of much of the public to accept that it is useful or even legitimate to think seriously about the true cost of climate change. Cost is important for the simple reason that it is not rational to spend more on removing the next tonne of carbon emissions than the cost of the damage it would cause. That's a simple principle but very hard to put into practice, as the article shows. We know a lot about the abatement cost but little about the damage cost. Richard Tol looked at 88 estimates of damage costs per tonne of carbon emissions and found them to cover a range from less than $5 to over $200. That was a few years ago; the uncertainty has probably not gone down since then. So, while the principle is important to think about and debate, it’s not yet a real basis for action. Much better guidance comes from the quantum of emission reductions reckoned to keep global warming to some target level, say two degrees. Once that has been decided, look at the cost and check it out against the damage cost. It might not give a clear answer, but at least it’s rational. And that seems to be a big step for many.

Rich2
in fact its the other way round.. what evidence will convince you that climate change just isn't happening as expected? None of the forecasts made by the IPCC sinbce 1990 have been bourne out. Almost all the seasonal climate forecasts made by the Met Office - an IPCC bastion - among others, have been laughably wrong.

Admittedly temperatures at the moment are high, but even if any of the theory is wright you still have the problem that you're dealing with a unproven forecasting system rather than a scientific theory.. no matter which you turn there are problems. There is no 90 per cent certainty about any of it.. time to admit the doubts.

“There is no 90 per cent certainty about any of it. time to admit the doubts.”
The Australian Academy of Science in its report of August 2010, The Science of Climate Change, Questions and Answers is a fair enough place to start looking at the range of knowledge available to assess certainties and doubts; and place whatever percentages any rational person wishes to place upon them.

Curmudgeon,

You state that "None of the forecasts made by the IPCC sinbce 1990 have been bourne out."

Could you please list say the top 5 forecasts they made as per one of their reports with a reference to which report and where in that report, and what actually happened in a table and post on this forum. Then we can have a proper basis for a discussion.

Thanks

Is climate change a meaningful concept?

1. Is the direction towards higher temperatures? If so by how much and where? Does it mean warmer summers or milder winters or both?

2. Or is the direction towards long hard cold winters such as is
being experiences in Northern Europe, North America and North Asia?

3. Does it mean increased draughts or exceptional floods?

4. Does not mean that the climate of Perth which is now Mediterranean will suddenly metamorphose into either sub-arctic or tropical or what you will.

Peter Hume defined climate change as:

“We need to remember that "climate change" is shorthand for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming justifying policy action".

Peter is correct, “climate change” is a slogan employed by activists to bolster support for the greenhouse hypothesis. The fact is that daily the anthropogenic global warming story becomes less and less plausible

Will ice caps melt without global warming, climate change, call it what you like. The thing is something is happening, nature is not happy.
To get science 100 % it will probably take considerable time. Man has been polluting at an increasing rate, which has now upset the balance of what the world can take. Cut down on the pollution and who knows what we may benefit.

Rich2 - I won't go through all of that but as a start the 1990 report by the IPCC forecast minimum temperature increased of 0.2 degree C for each decade. That is a total of 0.4 degrees minimum increase which should have occured by now.. the actual result was, charitably, something like a 0.15 degrees increase. You'll have real trouble finding the report as the IPCC doesn't have it on its site anymore. Proved to be too much of an embarrassment. the panel also forecast big temperature increases in its 2000 report but basically since then nothing has happened - temperatures have bounced around a bit.. up in 2010 but down in 2008-09 and likely to be down this year due to la nina. Slightly down overall since the 2000 report perhaps but its arguable..

Global warmers have been reduced to arguing that really the warming is there, we just can't see it due to other factors.. right!

the 2007 report was more of the same with still nothing happening. Warming patterns? Nope, they also don't conform. Hunt around and you'll see what I mean..

Nothing is working out as the IPCC forecast..

Curmudgeon,

I found the report in about 3 seconds. Try keying in "IPCC 1990 report" into Google.

I think you should provide the table as you have made the comment.

If you are correct then it would be interesting to know it.

Better still, try here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#1

When a supposed 'science writer' can't scroll down a site but instead comes out with;

"You'll have real trouble finding the report as the IPCC doesn't have it on its site anymore. Proved to be too much of an embarrassment."

one can't help but query the writer's cognition skills.

Curmudgeon, you only see/believe what you want to see/believe - regardless of the truth.

Yep, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

Anti-green
In other words, George W Bush and the Republican Party are climate change activists. Excellent!

Who argues with deniers anymore? These political, economic and religious fundamentalists are a lost cause. When the empirical evidence indicates otherwise, when climate scientists recant and my instincts are assuaged, I'll reassess. Otherwise...

The dogs may bark but the caravan moves on.

The imbecilic yapping of deniers leaves me unmoved.

Rich2 & Bonmot

What Curmudgeon posted is essentially correct. They certainly indicated in AR3 in 2001 that temperatures would be expected to increase in the first 3 decades on this century at a rate of approx. 2C per century. See for example:

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-projections-overpredict-recent-warming/

For the last 10 years global temperatures have been flat; varying from slightly positive for GISSTEMP to slightly negative for HADCRUT (for example). See

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/hadcrut-nh-sh-temperature-rose-in-november/

SOMETHING IS HAPPENING OUT THERE.....

579

"The thing is something is happening, nature is not happy."

Nature has never been "happy", hence religion and pseudo-science.

The priest, the climate astrologer, the armchair alarmist, the worried well, etc - have carved a niche for themselves by promising to make her "happy", in this case by creating a Goldilocks climate just right for us.

Change is what climate does, and has done ever since the Earth acquired an atmosphere. There have been, some say, unexplained 15C swings across the geological time. Why?

Today’s eco-mantra - “All change is bad; all stasis is good” – indicates an irrational refusal to acknowledge the constantly evolving, constantly changing, character of life – and climate.

Climate change is morphing into another name for God, or at least His eco-archetype, Gaia. Like Him or Her, it is present everywhere, and arguably just as incomprehensible.

If so, conserve your energies, folks. Heretics, nota bene, this debate could run for another two millennia. You guys could be in for some rough patches up ahead.

Alice (in Gaialand

maaate
Why not just say "heretics" and have done with it?

"Why not just say "heretics" and have done with it?"

What, and feed your "hard done by" persecution complex? Dream on.

Why don't you entertain us with a rendition of "Jesus doesn't want me for a sunbeam"? Here, have a tissue champ....

maaate is showing once again that after the warmists' appeal to absent authority is questioned, they descend immediately into personal argument, because those two fallacies are all they have.

The science isn't settled, the religion is being agitated, that is all.

As a layman I think I have every right to be very dismayed at the contradictory messages about climate change – whether it is man-made, what, if any sea level rises I should expect. Living in an area which is low-lying and near the sea I am concerned. However, in canvassing the opinions of the local residents it seems that the disputes between various climate ‘experts’ has had an effect of making them into complete sceptics on the subject of climate change. Yes, they say, climate has changed and always will. As for sea level rises, they have seen no evidence of it – erosion after storms, yes, but no discernible change in high tide levels over the past 10 years.
Moreover and far more importantly, the local government authority concurs with this sceptical outlook. The Council (FCRC) has recently written to the state government department of infrastructure and planning (DIP) asking that certain land excluded from future residential development be allowed to proceed. The FCRC’s plea on behalf of a developer was in respect of wetland with AHDs varying from zero to 2 metres and less than 200metres from a steadily eroding beach. Show a FCRC councillor the various reports showing forecast sea level rises for 2100 varying from 50 cm (IPCC 2007) to over 200cm (Grinstead et al, 2009) and eyes go glazed. What is more important? Development, of course. It creates employment, houses the people needed to help us along to the 50 million target population, it helps small business and augments the Council’s rateable value. Why worry about things which may never happen? Somebody, please tell me. And if any of those published forecasts of sea levels are really verifiable, please tell the FCRC.

Bonmot - Rich3.. congratulations! Particularly to Bonmot, who had the right link. The 1990 IPCC report was impossible to find in late 2009 when I researching this stuff.. sceptics at the time noted that it had been removed from the IPCC site.. and assumed it had been withdrawn because it had been shown to be wrong. So it must have been put back, which is very foolish of the IPCC but there it is. So I have learned something from you guys.
Here is a key passage.

"Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A)
emissions of greenhouse gases, a rate of increase of
global mean temperature during the next century of
about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that
seen over the past 10,000 years."

So its saying mid range 0.6 degrees C by now and a minimum of 0.4. Its wrong. the increase has been well under 0.2 degrees.. Look at the graphs at the Hadley Centre or the more reliable satellite data published by the University of Alabama in Huntsville..
Bad forecasts should be recognised for what they are..

The true cost of Climate Change and Global Warming is in the countless hours that sane people need to expend in exposing the lie of it all and uncovering it's true socialist 'wealth redistribution' and Global Government agenda.

Curmudgeon
The IPCC involved in a conspiracy to ‘hide’ their reports? Such a lame excuse, but typical. FAR has always been accessible, despite your protestations to the contrary. Alas, a distraction.

I assume (not a good idea) you understand why reports from the IPCC are released every few years - not least because of extra data, better analyses, improved techniques, superior technology, etc. Indeed, IPCC reports released since FAR reflect these improvements. In other words, it would be puerile for anyone to base an argument on outdated reports – this seems to be what you are in fact doing.

It would be far more reasonable to critique something like this:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5-3.html

Give it a go.

Rich2, if you really want something factual, the judge in the Xstrata casein 2007 said the following:
“ Finally, the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Summary for Policymakers was released on 2 February 2007

It relevantly concluded that is very likely that human-induced GHGs are causing global warming, and that most of the observed increases in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century are very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human-caused) GHG concentrations.

However, a close examination of the global mean temperature chart (Fig SPM-3), which was said to support that view, reveals that the last 106 years had 3 periods of cooling (1900-1910, 1944-1976, 1998-2006) and 2 periods of warming (1910-1944, 1976-1998) and that temperatures rose only 0.5°C from 1900 to 2006. The largest temperature change in the 20th century was a 0.75°C rise between 1976 and 1998,

But the fact that very similar rises have previously occurred (1852-1878, 0.65°C and 1910-1944, 0.65°C) was not specifically mentioned or causally explained in the Summary. Also not mentioned or causally explained is the fact that temperatures have actually fallen 0.05°C over the last 8 years.”

How much notice should be taken of the IPCC and its “very likely”. What an unscientific and meaningless assertion, particularly in view of the Judge’s comments.

This is not the first or only time the IPCC has been shown to engage in misleading conduct and statements.

bonmot, of course, will attempt to mislead you into taking the IPCC at its word. I am starting to doubt that bonmot is honestly mistaken in the nonsence he puts forward. He may be an AGW fraud pusher.

For others who wish to understand where Leo is coming from, the full story is here:

http://www.envlaw.com.au/newlands.html

Interesting saga - you can make up your own minds.

It’s worth noting that the Xstrata Case was appealed to the Supreme Court, and the original finding by the President of the Tribunal (Leo's 'judge') was overturned.

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2007/QCA07-338.pdf

The Court’s conclusion from para 56 to 68 is particularly fascinating.

I would add:
This is not the first or only time Leo has been shown to engage in misleading conduct and statements. In fact, this is what I have come to expect of him.

Bonmot - the 2007 report you can't do much with as its only just under four years old. Even the IPCC can't get it completely wrong in that time frame, although you want to read up on some of the arguments they have about warming patterns. Also you don't use the report so much as compare what it says with what happened. Global temperatures are about where they were or a bit below the 2007 mark.

The 2007 report is admittedly more sophisticated but still uses the same assumptions, including a key assumption concerning the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, which proved completely wrong in 1990.

In any case, as you can now see forecasts and forecasting systems have to be properly assessed, and not simply endorsed by other scientists. Leave it with you.

Cheers

Bring on AR5, presumably with improved everything the Inter Academy Council suggested and with which the IPCC endorsed.

http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.shtml

Gary

See my comment to Curmudgeon http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11503#196008

Lucia is a nice young girl but she has still a lot to learn, sorry.

This guy has taught her a thing or two:

http://tinyurl.com/46t5lhe

At the end of the day, it's not a case of 'you show me yours and I'll show you mine' (besides, I don't know you that well, sailor). What is important is the truth - and it will out, as it always does, despite the antics of a few 'sceptics' - it just may take a while.

Hopefully it won't be too late.

Thanks to bonmot for taking the trouble to provide some useful links to refute the comments made by some others. Can't say I have participated in such forums before and not sure I will do so again as I can see it sucks the energy out of you dealing with various curmudgeonly people some of them by their own admission.
For me the evidence that we are in deep trouble accumulates like this. 1. IPCC, surely a conservative body, representing a large number of scientists from across the world managed to come to this conclusion. 2. Other than madcap conspiracy theories I don't hear any other alternative explanations that haven't been dealt with by said scientists. 3. Apart from the scientific temperature recordings I see evidence that the world is warming, seasons changing and extreme weather becoming more commonplace and more extreme. 4. Finally it strikes my that it is common sense to take seriously the proposition that spewing 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air year after year through burning fossil fuels, is likely to cause problems - indeed it would be amazing if it didn't. Some time ago I calculated 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide would fill a box with a base the size of Australia and sides 2 metres tall. Given the relative thinness of our atmosphere that sounds like a lot.......
Those that choose to deny for the hell of it I believe do themselves, any offspring they may have and humanity at large a great disservice, and for what? For the benefit of the oil and gas and coal industry executives. Not worth it.....

The decision in the XStrata case was appealed, and it was sent back for rehearing. None of the findings were “overturned”

The decision was set aside on technical grounds. The Queensland Conservation Council said that they were not put on notice that certain evidence would be applied in the way that it was, which the Appeal Court found was a denial of natural justice.

The finding that the IPCC Summary was contrary to the science upon which it represents it is based was not subject to any comment, and in any event is obvious from the IPCC document itself, so do not be misled by bonmot into thinking that the IPCC is anything but a mine of misinformation.

As for the allegation that I was misleading, my post quoted verbatim the portion of the judgement which found that the IPCC misrepresented the science. Bonmot should watch what he says.

Xstrata, in this case, conceded that anthropogenic activities affect global warming. This was in 2007. The greenhouse gas theory has now been shown to be flawed, and the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere accompanied by a cessation in warming, means that such a concession would not be made today, and should not have been made then..

Para 56 of the Appeal judgement to which bonmot kindly called to our attention, shows that this unwarranted concession caused the matter to be sent back for rehearing: “ The Tribunal took into account, in rejecting the conditions sought by QCC to be imposed on any recommendations granting Xstrata's applications, a critique which put in issue the fact, accepted by all at the hearing, that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global warming.”

Rich2, it makes more sense to take into account that there is no scientific backup for your assertions, which are based on a misconception of the situation, and not on common sense, at all.

Read Professor Robert Carter's book "Climate: The Counter Consensus", which gives a very clear, objective account of the whole topic.

Leo,
You have picked a bad day to continue arguing the toss about these things:
1. Last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies announced that 2010 had registered as the hottest year on record. Nothing new here: nine of the last 10 years have been among the warmest ever.
and
2. BP admits in its new Energy Outlook 2030 report, which was published yesterday, that global CO2 emissions from energy will grow an average of 1.2 percent a year through 2030. In total, BP’s chief economist Christof Ruehl predicts “to the best of our knowledge,” CO2 emissions will rise by 27 percent over the next two decades, meaning an increase of about 33bn tons. All this does not bode well for climate change, with even Bob Dudley calling the scenarios a “wake-up call“:
I (Bob Dudley CEO) need to emphasize that this is a projection, not a proposition. It is our dispassionate view of what we believe is most likely to happen on the basis of the evidence. For example, we are not as optimistic as others about progress in reducing carbon emissions. But that doesn’t mean we oppose such progress. As you probably know, BP has a 15 year record of calling for more action from governments, including the wide application of a carbon price. Our base case assumes that countries continue to make some progress on addressing climate change, based on the current and expected level of political commitment. But overall, for me personally, it is a wake-up call, not something any of us would like to see happening.

Thanks, Rich2, that confirms that you have no science to back the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate change.

Neither does the IPCC, but they look at slogans from Greenpeace and WWF. Much like looking at what BP says, or NASA or NOAA, which are politically compromised bodies.

Read Carter's book, and you may stop talking nonsense.

Leo

Am quite sure IPCC's work has a scientific basis to it. As I understand it the science that increased carbon dioxide would lead to warming has been around for a hundred years or so.
However if you think the right thing to do is to bet the future on Carter being right go for it. According to Wikipedia, Carter is a committee member in the "Institute for Public Affairs" (IPA), an Australian-based organization that has received funding from the tobacco and fossil fuel industries (amongst others). The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2009 report Climate Change Reconsidered, which Carter contributed to, was published by the Heartland Institute, an industry-funded organization that has worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks, and has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
When you can find one scientific institute of any repute in any country that agrees with Carter I will have a rethink. Till then I will not indulge you with any more repudiations of your comments ....

I think the cost of climate change will be subdued by the employment it will create. More and more car makers are putting out electric cars, which is good to see. A new breed of battery is in motion, and with far less weight. We need the carbon tax to push inavation along.
Hopefully get off oil altogether for consumers. This will leave oil for the manufacture of specific plastics.

Thanks Rich2. Yeah, the energy does get sucked out by the antics of some. I don't know if it's worth it, there's more important things in life, imo.

Not it seems for Leo, his life's mission. Google him - "Leo Lane" + "climate" and wallah - you can see he chants his rabid mantra all over the place. Roaming the blogosphere in Quixotic zeal as an apostle to the Bob Carters and Ian Plimers of the world - home spun messiahs to anyone associated with the Lavoisier Group (another interesting Google term to search).

Like you, I give more credence to scientific organisations and research institutions. For some inexplicable reason, I can't help but feel vested interests and big mining are out to screw - the Earth literally and us metaphorically :(

.

Leo darling,
Overturned, set aside, sent back to the drawing boards ... whatever.

At the end of the day it didn't matter that the Supreme Court said justice wasn't served by the findings of the President of the Tribunal ... the mining industry and State government wanted that Coal mine extended regardless of the Supreme Court, and it was.

The case was not reheard, despite the successful appeal.