These two papers find that CO2 and global warming may be beneficial for the global economy. That is, the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is negative.

If these findings are correct, policies to reduce CO2 emissions are harmful.

Lang, P.A.; Gregory, K.B. Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming. Energies 2019, 12, 3575. https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/18/3575

Dayaratna, K.D.; McKitrick, R.; Michaels, P.J. Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w

When the northern hemisphere media take up AGW I think there will be no going back. New York for example hitting 50C or London getting flooded. Then the climate quibblers will have an uphill battle. As Max Planck said about quantum physics naysayers they eventually die out and a new normal viewpoint takes over.

For those of you interested in expanding your horizons, read the two papers mentioned in the first comment (both are open access).

Lang shows that the use of economic models for policy, is just as 'woolly' as it is those beloved climate. They show that policy economic models do not match the actual real world empirical data.

In other words, if you are so inclined, the models can be used to forecast what ever you want with the appropriate parametrization... and who needs to match silly old-fashioned troublesome data. Sound familiar... Climategate?

The climate crooks wouldn't have been able to spread their lies without the sensationalising media which his desperately grabbing at any bullshite to boost its sinking circulation.

There's no valid comparison in the two tipping points, one means we need to find a new energy source the other is a point of no return toward an inevitable extermination event!

Even to try to connect them as somehow similar shows just how desperate devious denialists have become! Ditto the coal lobby!

Suggest you listen to the voice of reason as voiced by our own Russel Crowe! Genius.
Alan B.

For more climate deceit see the "Hinderaker and Watts chart on on the lies of 'climate change'" in Catallaxy Files 16th. February.

Alison Jane,

Thanks you. I'd encourage others to read both [papers in full and forward them to their contacts. I believe they are significant contributions. They need to be spread as widely as possible because many people just don't want to consider the prospect that the whole CAGW fear campaign could be based on a false premise.

Hi Peter,

In the economic history of The Next Big Things, it seems that one feature stands out. Looking at the take-up of, and huge capital investments in, canals in Europe (late eighteenth century), railways (1830-1850), building and sealing of roads (1850-1880), electricity production and distribution (1880-1910), telephony (1890-1910), automobiles (1900-1920), etc., the process seemed to have been one of rapid and huge investment, flowering of technology and innovation in that particular area, and levelling-off of investment, before the movement of big capital into the Next Big Thing.

Opportunities for big investment in renewables have been around now for thirty or more years. But expansion of the production of renewable energy seems to have come from government subsidies rather than from private funds. Yet, with more demands than ever being devised which will require massive investments in just such renewables, such as electric cars and the processing of ever more rare earths, that investment seems to be slowing down.

And clearly, many countries, such as India, will never adopt sufficient renewable energy to power all of its needs.

So is the push for investment in renewable energy running out of puff ? Is big capital looking for the Next Big Thing ?

[Nobody mention nuclear.]

Joe

Renewables will never be able to meet much of the world's ever growing energy demand. The costs will always be prohibitive - enormous costs for energy storage and for grids to widely dispersed renewable generators with low capacity factors. The transmission lines cost far more for renewables than for baseload power stations because they have to be much longer and have to be sized to transmit the maximum output of the solar or wind farm, but for only 20-30% of full output on average. So the cost per km of line is 3 to 4 times more than to baseload power stations, as well as three to ten times the length - perhaps more..

The rear guard action by the denial crowd is taking a predictable course isn't it.

Even Andrew Bolt this month abandoned the ship recognising AGW but asserting it will be 'good for us'.

While the author and many commenting here are still either in the denial or the anger phases at least Bolt has moved to the bargaining phase.

And can article authors please provide references when they make statements like; "A 2007 AGW paper defined nine climatic tipping points, namely: Amazon Forest; West Antarctic; East Antarctic; Arctic; Atlantic circulation; boreal forest; coral reefs; Greenland; and permafrost."

No citation usually means there is something within the paper which doesn't align with the article.

DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN. If GOD there be and HEAVEN there ALSO be, then SMITE these braindead dropkicks claiming that CO2 is GOOD FOR US!

ANYBODY with even high school science understands that drastic increases CO2 in the atmosphere are not only TOXIC but are the ROOT CAUSE of climate change. IT FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERS THE CHEMISTRY OF THE MEDIUM.

I and my family; my son and my grandkids; are fed up to the eye teeth with whinging whining old farts with NO F'ing CLUE as to the realities of the science.

THERE IS NO DISSENT IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. NONE.

ALL....REPEAT ALL... of supposed 'dissenters' have been PROVEN to be either corrupted findings, bad data, lousy methodologies, or just flat out wrong.

LIMITED CO2 increases are beneficial only in SMALL AMOUNTS for very short periods of time.

Seriously people. WHY are you insisting on CONTINUING this idiot conversation?

You either believe the science or you believe Murdoch and Morrison and morons like Trump. I reject the morons. Utterly.

My family are innocent. I'm not EVER going to be sitting around with my thumb up my arse rocking back and forth while braindead corrupt arsewipes destroy the air water and land for everybody still to come.

We are TENANTS on this world.. we hold it in TRUST for our kids and grandkids. This is NOT a toxic dumping ground for idiot arsewipe polluting shitsmears who think that they are able to dump their poisonous filth on my grandkids, just because they're too damned lazy to clean up properly.

Poll released today on cause of bushfires:

Drought 85%
Fuel Loads 75%
State Government Planning 74%
Federal Government Planning 70%
Climate Change 61%

My-oh-my. steel-redux needs to know the source of the nine climatic tipping points. Even the media uses that stuff and has appeared in IPCC reports for over a decade! I am assuming you've read the IPCC reports.

tbbn; interesting spread of causes, did the poll you saw show the question asked?

AJ,

No. In fact the announcer said the pollsters had asked not to identified. Don't know what to make of that. Like you, I would like to see the actual questions, but there are rarely available. I would guess that they were skewed to get the answer the subscriber wanted. I wouldn't take any poll as the Gospel truth, and I don't believe the 61%, despite 'assurances' from the climate crooks that their dogma and lies will soon be the new normal.

The poll also found that climate change came 9th in importance after the usual economic concerns.

tbbn, I suppose the poll you heard is akin to the social media propaganda element of a "social tipping point". No facts, detail, transparency.. 'whatever'? I assume that was the point being made by the articles author.

BUT, given the poll figures you heard... at least its not a " 97% consensus" and "the Science is settled". Climate doesn't seem to be the only cause when it comes to the bushfires.... Shock horror drought and fuel load were the top 2 causes.

Can't remember that being pushed in the 'neutral' ABC media machine. That's a big improvement and perhaps shows why the AGW/CCC/HIGW activists are getting desperate.

By the way has anyone seen any major coverage of the declaration and action plans from last weekends National Climate Emergency Summit?.. if they had something of value even the SMH/Age/Guardian would have published it.

omygodnoitsitsitsyou , OK who are you really? One of the resident idiots I will warrant?
See just because you use the language you have it does not mean integrity in fact it reeks of dishonesty! You and your poor children fighting against all the bad people in the world? Give me a break idiot and take your stupidity, dishonesty and bile elsewhere.
Mr. O is my first choice as it matches his odious actions.

Alison, I think more and more people are beginning to question the science, not the part that the globe MIGHT be warming, because it does fluctuate between hot and cold over hundreds of years, or in cycles.
The lie that is being uncovered/discovered is that whoever started this con, attached the fact that humans are causing this GW or CC.
This is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
We are too insignificant to cause ANY change to the planet.
End of story.
Now if the climate alarmists want to be taken seriously then they have to admit, like us that, firstly the planet MIGHT be warming, but more importantly agree and accept that we had/have nothing to do with it and we do not need to do anything about it.
We DO NOT need to waste trillions of dollars in subsidies for the development of renewables, when they cannot handle the job they are required to undertake anyway.
In the past, as loudmouth rightly and astutely pointed out, the private sector came to the fore and introduced and developed any new technologies, which he best described further back.
Here we are talking about govt's paying out subsidies and all manner of public money in one guise or another to do the job of developing this new technology which was previously the purview of the private sector.
This might just be the food for the con.
Who else has unlimited money and unlimited freedom to spend or steal it.
You and I have NO control or ability to scrutinise what happens to the billions in our public piggy bank.
So these bastards just keep finding ways to spend it, along the way ensuring they pocket a few million for themselves.
They're too conniving to leave a trail and be caught out so don't bother, unless an insider decides to blow the whistle, and even then.
You won't find many/any scientists willing to stick their necks out for no good reason, to debunk this con, so don't hold your breath.
Again it would be a very foolish scientist who went against his peers.
Morrison too.

Just to add some grunt to the fact that it's a con, here's our very own Saint Attenborough, being caught out with more of the alarmist BS.
And one other, I do have more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Rkv-ItznBE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw

Yep, in the end, nobody told the King the sky was falling. But the fox had a very good feed of poultry.

Obviously, the fox cared little for the story, and feasted on the panicked crowd, after luring them down a rabbit hole.

But there is always a bright side, the old hen continued laying her eggs!
I guess that can only mean, someday the chickens will come home to roast in a climate change moment.

Dan

ALTRAV,
I recall as a treat being allowed to go a watch hunky/honkey Robert Redford in his "Three days of the Condor" movie, while under, with my parents. A great 1970's political thriller. but remember the last scene, when Redford thinks the NY times would tell his story... or maybe not??

The AGW movement has been building momentum from 1987 as far as I can recall. Just like Robert Redford character, all we can do is to call out the falsehoods, society will ultimately decide how to react.

Unfortunately unlike the 1970's fictitious world of that movie, social media infects our society with no regulation, no supervision and certainly no transparency.

But as I now enter semi-retirement, "frankly my dear I don't give a dam" and will call out what I see until the CCCers can convince me otherwise with scientific facts, trends and analysis that is verifiable independently.

For the time being its a free world and we haven't yet allowed the AGW/CCC movements to convince us to listen to the Orwellian "Newspeak" and "doublethink"

Altrav: when the government employs 18-year-old kids straight out of high school as ministerial advisors and gives 23-year-olds the power to withhold FOI on highly spurious assumptions, we get what we've got now.

Nobody has mentioned nuclear because 18-year-old advisors have had the living daylights frightened outta them by the BS crap merchants and the robber barons in the now seriously threatened fossil fuel industry.

They won't read Thorium, super fuel subtitled green energy, by prize-winning investigative Journalist and science writer, Richard Martin.

Simply don't get that unconventional nuclear power has nothing in common with conventional nuclear power and that unconventional, walk away safe MSR technology Is far, far cheaper to run and operate.

And operate as unpressurised at the local ambient atmospheric pressure. So, can't explode due to internal pressure like Chernobyl!

Can't meltdown like Fukushima or Chernobyl, because the coolant medium is already molten and the reactor designed to operate at that or higher heat, topping out at 1200C,

With a drain plug at the base that automatically drains the reactor if for any reason there's a power failure. And self drains into a purpose-built storage tank where it cools and solidifies.

While a conventional reactor needs vastly more internal strength and a specially hardened building And during an operational 30 year lifetime, will require 25511 tons of fuel, rare as platinum, from which it'll produce as much as 2550 tons of nuclear waste. Not so MSR!

Whereas the unconventional MSR say a 350 MW FUJI, will require just one single ton of vastly more abundant Thorium.

Moreover, this technology will produce copious quantities of miracle cancer cure, alpha particle isotope, bismuth 213.

And should it suit, can be retasked to burn nuclear waste and provide virtually free, carbon-free energy, tor literally thousands of years and in perfect radiation-free safety, while the half-life is reduced to just 300 years! What else do we need!?

Even as the build and remaining R+D is fully paid for with the annual billions we'd earn as a nuclear waste repository! Seriously!
Alan B.

Alan,

The reason we don't have thorium reactors is because they have no economic justification. Development of the technology would be very costly and I think there would be many technical challenges to overcome. Add to this the facts that the US Navy had viable reactors for its ships and subs, and civilian nuclear power was far more costly than once envisaged, then it is little wonder that the idea lost interest.

The development of SMAs, notably the project by the Rolls Royce engineers, has my interest, but it will be the end of the decade before we start getting an idea of the technology's viability. I am enthusiastic about the development of new technologies, but have seen enough technical "breakthroughs" and cancer "cures" over the years to realise how little chance novel ideas have of succeeding. It is easy to get sucked in by a good sounding story.

Cheers

Fester, if memory serves, the US was already deep in developing MSR reactors.
It was one of their moronic decisions to take the funding away from it and give it to, I'm not sure but I think it was for nuclear weapons.
So as Alan said, because MSR technology was not capable of being weaponised, it was dropped in favour of what we have today.
I don't remember which President pulled the plug on it, but it doesn't matter, the elite Jews were behind it, pulling the Presidents strings, so obviously they went after the money, which was by winning the war, and being they are such callous and un-human bastards, they do not care how many people die, as long as their goals are achieved, which was always money, (wealth) and power.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-true-story-of-the-bilderberg-group-and-what-they-may-be-planning-now/13808

I know this may seem a little off topic, but trust me on this, not much of any consequence or profit at a large scale happens that these bastards are not the instigators and propagators.
And I fear this GW, CC fraud smacks of them all aver again.

Dear Alison Jane,

Still merrily chirping away I see.

You up to answering a question I have repeatedly put to you but one you studiously avoid addressing, what would it take for you to accept that AGW is indeed significantly raising global temperatures?

A certain temperature? An ice free Arctic over summer, a meter sea level rise? Your call, is there anything you could nominate?

Clearly, the fossil fuel company scientists are reportedly telling their employer one and the general public another. Part of which seems to be denying the science!

Some of which is comparing historical outcomes and what were the causal factors and now! We t a few years away? What blue-collar jobs will they still provide and what will the loss of those jobs in coal mines even as they are progressively automated. and when complete just become sources of royalties until the bottom drops completely out of coal?

I mean how much do regional and rural communities gain now from fly in fly out workforces. How much will price gouging, tax-avoiding profit repatriating foreigner contribute to the small regions and rural towns when the workforce are mostly robots! An how many votes will they bring to coal company compliant politicians/our alleged servants? Robots don't vote! Or pay tax!

Every boy and his dog knows that we need to end our dependence on fossil fuel. But resisted to the last man by our alleged political representitives/servants!

Some of who will die in a ditch first! It's not as if we didn't have a veritable plethora of alternative choices and the means to adopt them and saner choices!

It's time representing those who elect their reps, get what they pay for, rather than lobbyists with very deep pockets exerting undue influence?

If there's another less disturbing explanation It surely escapes me!
Alan B.

Correction and apologies, 25511 tons in an earlier comment should read 2551 tons. Getting some special treatment and extra help from autocorrect Grammarly.
Alan B.

Grammarly only exists so that the AI can better read your private digital conversations.

I refuse to use Grammarly despite the odd typo !

Cmon Steele.
These deniers could have water up around their necks and they still wouldnt admit it was climate change.
Nothing trumps(haha) their ideology. EVER!

SR, have you heard the iconic words from 'The Kingswood Country'?
"Tell im e's dreamen"!
That goes for you and your question to Alison.
Meter high oceans?
Dreamen!
SIGNIFICANTLY raising global temperatures?
Dreamen!
An ice free Arctic summer?
Dreamen!
SR, no sane even half intelligent person can dream up this crap.
You're full of it.
Now here's a challenge for you, but I know you can't answer it so I'll just go straight to calling you a smart arse and a sh!t stirrer, who enjoys big noting himself and putting down others, but here goes.
Where is the clear proof that all the things you ask of Alison are in fact a reality?
Not some scientific crappy half arsed explanation which cannot be verified or proven until well after we are all dead and then looking back finding out it was all a big con, NO the real and actual proof.

Here is a puzzle for you. AGWers state that increasing global temps is causing CO2 to be released from the oceans and the permafrost. So temp according to them causes the CO2 to increase. Correct?

So why then is the CO2 increase not due to the natural trend in temperature rise that we get as we move out of an ice age, even the little ice age, 1700s)

Please explain and then relate your answer to the longer time frame of the Vostoc Ice cores. Were those results from those cores the social tipping point that moved us from the period of doom with new ice ages forecast in the early 1980's to the regime where the globe was warming due to CO2 that started less than a decade later?.

And for a bonus of 10 which national leader was the first to endorse global warming?

Good on ya, Steelie. You are on the same side as those Extinction Rebellion morons, ANTIFA, Getup, Socialist Alternative, The Greens, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Nancy Pelosi, and Al Gore.

I am so glad they are on your side. Smart people know that anything these cretins advocate is a loser.

Alison, I don't know how your doing it, but keep it up.
I'm loving this.
I may not have your skills and ability to articulate and illuminate, so I won't try.
I'm happy to sit back and read/take in your pearls of wisdom.
I defer to your continual point scoring against a barrage of leftist
ideology and subjective beliefs.

endorse global warming?
Alison Jane,
How do you mean by endorse ? Accepting the science or jumping on the bandwagon ?

Club of Rome, Limits to Growth PR construct and ZPG Zero Population Growth (Paul 'population bomb' Ehrlich and John 'passive eugenics' Tanton) were all supported by fossil fuel and related, i.e. Rockefeller (Standard Oil/Exxon), Ford, Carnegie etc., with Koch's seemingly central nowadays.

Suggests admission that the sector knew of global warming in the '70s and got to work on a long PR game of deflection by blaming immigrant led population growth for all symptoms of fossil fuel sector; in addition to promoting pseudo science, conspiracy theories, Christianity, white nationalism etc.

In the eyes of many the related, their tipping point will be when 'brown people outnumber white people' and their oligarch power over industry and politics recedes; hence attempts to renew 19th century capitalism with eugenics or 'radical right libertarianism' as promoted by IPA and IEA UK for Brexit.

Alison Jane where have you come from? 130+ posts re. climate change since recently joining in November '19?

Andras, I must admit I too am curious as to who/what Alison is.
Mind you I find her?him?It? fascinating and a breath of fresh air, and is one commentor I look forward to reading.
I find this entity known as Alison, an enigma, and for all the right reasons.
Never-the-less I would also like to know more about this entity.

'These deniers could have water up around their necks and they still wouldnt admit it was climate change.
Nothing trumps(haha) their ideology. EVER!'

Mikk gets confused by Noah's flood which actually did happen.

Mikk,

Pretty much all of us would agree that there is a level of climate change, and part of it due to an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn is due to the massive increase in the burning of fossil fuels over the pat two hundred years.

And most of us would also agree that sea-levels have risen maybe two inches in two hundred years.

Not exactly up around our necks.

The tides here in Adelaide go up and down about a metre, twice a day.

Joe

runner, if the deniers had water up to their necks, they must have taken a wrong turn somewhere and ended up in the ocean, or someones swimming pool.
The deniers are gaining ground on an issue there was no ground to gain,because it was always a con job.
It all started when someone found out that the planet goes through warming and cooling cycles naturally, and by itself.
When it goes through a warming cycle, which happens every few hundred years, CO2 is released from such places as the oceans.
So it's not humans that are to blame for any CO2 increase.
It's the planet, and BTW, first the planet warms up, THEN and only after it warms up does it release CO2.
Got it now?
So burning fossil fuels has nothing to do with CO2, nor do we.
Can I get back to doing nothing now?
I find it eminently more worthwhile than explaining a very simple principal that is common knowledge to any student.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRRXZ1B5foE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw

Give these a look in.

ALTRAV
'The deniers are gaining ground on an issue there was no ground to gain,because it was always a con job.'

I could not agree more ALTRAV. In the 1980's I was aware of the absolute crap pseudo scientist were saying about the Ozone layer. This man made gw garbage has been around for a long time. I was stating this long before Australia was stupid enough to elect Rudd to power. Even back then the likes of Foxy and other gullible people were jumping on the bandwagon on olo. Rudd claimed it was the 'greatest moral dilema of the century'. He is of the same ilk as Turnbull. They both showed you only need to be crafty to be PM of this country but not to smart.

My reference to Noah's flood was to highlight how many ignore real issues due to their depravity and take up fake issues like man made gw. It turns kids into virtue signallers while not really undestand how depraved their generation is.

Runner your last comment re youth is spot on. Unfortunately, we have allowed left-wing greenies to direct the education system to teach kids the GW scam is true science at its purist and most virtuous.

I know parents who call themselves scientists ( just because they did a degree 30 years ago), BUT wouldn't dare challenge their kids on the subject. If that is not indoctrination?, Himmler must have been an angel of goodness!

'Unfortunately, we have allowed left-wing greenies to direct the education system to teach kids the GW scam is true science at its purist and most virtuous.'

Makes you wonder how some of these 'science' teachers can even work out how to press the play button for the Al Gore type propaganda. I was a goose at school but not half as naive as these social engineers.

Guys, I might go as far as saying that the adults are ignorant, naive, and will believe anything, and it is they who are either the result of, or the pushers of social engineering.
Children are gullible and mostly innocent of any deception or lies short of, who put the toy or sock in the toilet or who broke the cup.
Beyond that they are innocent just as children are the symbol of innocence and purity.
They have not been corrupted by the system or adults yet.
Unlike that useless piece of doggy dung, going around, acting like some know-it-all smart arse, when she can barely identify with herself.
She is the epitome of arrogant, ignorant and you get it.
As a child she, if she actually believes herself, then she is definitely sick, mentally and emotionally.
I strongly recommend she be punished and thrown in some institution to rot.
I don't take to kindly to some little twat actually thinking she has the right to tell off the UN, and then accuse us all of some kind of vandalism.
She is just another annoying petulant, sick child with socially incompatible issues.
She belongs in an institution, end of.

Altrav, Greta is indeed an anomaly. If she had been put forward by anti global warming activists, she would have been crucified by the media.

So when will the media turn round and accuse her parents of child abuse... I doubt it happen soon!