For the blog reader
who insisted that
I had to comment
on the "Assessment":
The second volume
released by the
US Global Change
Research Program
( USGCRP ),
of a two-part series,
making wild guesses
on human-caused
global warming,
was called the:
“Fourth National
Climate Assessment:
Volume II: Impacts,
Risks, and Adaptation
in the United States.”
I didn't read the report
because I don't read fiction.
After 30 years of wrong climate
predictions, only a fool would
take the "Assessment" seriously,
or a leftist, but I repeat myself !
There is no evidence that the
slight global warming in the
past 138 years, mainly at night
during the colder months
of the year, in the northern half
of the Northern Hemisphere,
ever hurt anyone.
The warming rate since 1950,
which some people blame on CO2,
with no proof CO2 caused ANY of
the warming, extrapolates to only
a +1 degree C. rise in the average
global temperature over the next
200 years, when using
the worst case assumption
that CO2 caused 100%
of the warming since 1950.
The UN's IPCC
claims "over 50%",
with no proof,
but never 100%.
If a worst case estimate
for CO2 warming
is harmless,
there's no justification
for claiming that
adding CO2 to the air
will harm anyone !
But the Assessment is
not based on real science,
only the junk science
of the 'CO2 is Evil Cult'.
I did read an article about
the Assessment,
and that article
mentioned two things
in it that I believe are
ridiculous claims:
(1)
A key statement
in the summary says:
“However, the
assumption that
current and future
climate conditions
will resemble
the recent past
is no longer valid.”
That's a
ridiculous
statement
statement
-- it dismisses
all experience
with, and
knowledge of,
past climate change
on our planet !
In plain English,
the Assessment claims,
with no evidence, that
"It's different this time",
which are four of the
most dangerous words
in the English language !
(2)
The Assessment
also predicts
a 10% reduction
of GDP
at some time
in the future,
and implies
that would be
an economic
disaster.
As the editor of
an economics
newsletter
since 1977,
and an
economics blog
since 2008,
I know the 10%
was a wild guess.
I also know
a 10% reduction
is much closer to
a rounding error,
than to a crisis !
Based on realistic
population growth
expectations
and modest
productivity gains,
I'll assume a +1.5%
real GDP
growth rate
in the future.
Based on the Rule of 72,
it would take 48 years
for the Real GDP to double,
with +1.5% average growth
And Real GDP
would double again
in another 48 years --
( quadrupling in 96 years ).
Now let's assume
that global warming,
which I consider
to be good news
for agriculture
and humans,
actually reduced
Real GDP growth
by 10%,
from +1.5% a year,
to +1.35% a year.
+1.35% average real growth
means Real GDP would take
107 years to quadruple,
rather than
96 years to quadruple,
with +1.5% average growth,
which does not add up to a crisis !
Anyone who takes the
wild guess Assessment
seriously, is a fool,
or has the ulterior motive
of gaining political power,
by falsely scaring people
about CO2.