The Gisborne Herald: SORRY Mr Hughes, I did indeed mislead readers. The concession by the IPCC that there is unlikely to be any warming wasn’t in the draft of the fifth report that was released to reviewers in late 2011. It was actually in the draft of the report mentioned by you. This, however, does not alter the fact they have said it, nor that there has been no warming for 15 years.
On the other hand your assertion that “the cost of doing nothing . . . would be the greatest cost of all” is based on the tired models of the IPCC that have been found wanting. If the climate is not warming then the cost of doing nothing is nothing. Even if you wish to consider that warming is still occurring, as shown in the IPCC models, the costs of doing nothing are not greater, as you assert.
The Stern report only finds this to be the case by using an artificially low discount rate of 0.5 percent. Recalculate the costs at the standard rate of 5 percent and the costs of doing nothing and living with the effects of climate change drop to only 3 percent of the cost of taking action. The latest fear mongering from the IPCC about sea level rises being worse than models projected has me rolling on the floor with mirth.
James Hansen, a leading figure in the IPCC, made a projection in 1988 that the sea level would rise 3 metres in 40 years. They don’t expect me to believe it is rising faster than that do they? A look at the real data shows sea levels rising at a near constant rate. If anything there is a slight drop in recent years, but the trend is not yet significant. The data showing the increase in sea level rise has been adjusted. How were these adjustments made and what is the justification for them? Nobody will say, just as nobody is telling us how the global temperature adjustments have been made.
You mention heatwaves. Yes, it is a tragedy when lives are lost in a heatwave. But far more tragic is the greater number of lives lost to each winter’s cold snaps. Why does the IPCC “forget” to remind us of this? In your column on April 28 you mention the need to reduce CO 2 to 350 parts per million (ppm). But this is significantly below the optimum level for plant growth. I am sure that as an avid lover of nature you would not deliberately withhold water from your potplants so that they would wilt each day from moisture stress. Yet to restrict atmospheric CO 2 levels to 350ppm is effectively doing just this.
I cannot even begin to imagine how the all-knowing Creator of this magnificent universe could possibly blunder in creating plant life so that it thrives best on an atmospheric CO 2 level that according to scientists would cause runaway climate change. The only conclusion I can come to is that the scientists are wrong in insisting on holding CO 2 levels at 350ppm. I once was a global warming believer. But the continual misinformation dished out by the IPCC and its associates awakened me to the truth that their main aim is not the preservation of life on this planet but a campaign to paralyse the general population with fear while they take greater and greater control over every aspect of our lives.
Their ultimate aim is to return us to the peasant status of the Middle Ages. This is most emphatically not what I want for the generations coming after me. I am equally certain it also not what you would want either Mr Hughes.
Wednesday, May 09, 2012 • By: Neil Henderson
Started in year 2010, ‘Climate Himalaya’ initiative has been working on the mountain and climate related issues in the Himalayan region of South Asia. In the last two years this knowledge sharing portal has become one of the important references for the governments, research institutions, civil society groups and international agencies, those have work and interest in Himalayas. The Climate Himalaya team innovates on knowledge sharing, capacity building and climatic adaptation aspects in its focus countries like Bhutan, India, Nepal and Pakistan. Climate Himalaya’s thematic areas of work are mountain ecosystem, water, forest and livelihood. Read>>