For the record, from the IPCC FAQ:
Q: Are extreme events, like heat waves, droughts or floods, expected to change as the earth’s climate changes?
A: Yes … and these changes could occur even with relatively small mean climate changes. Changes in some types of extreme events have already been observed, for example, increases in the frequency and intensity of heat waves and heavy precipitation events.
Like snow.
Alexis Madrigal at The Atlantic makes the point:
What you need to know is that your city — pretty much wherever it is — was built for a climate that it may no longer have….
… most mayors have favored efficiency and lower taxes over resilience at the extreme ends of the weather spectrum. Why prepare for a day that may never come? Why plan for a once-a-decade event when you’ve got people in your ear about things that need fixing tomorrow (or yesterday).
(But) these kinds of storms can cost politicians elections, which might be the only thing that will start pushing them to make the hard, long-term decisions to adapt to a changing climate.
I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.
Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.
In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.
As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.
No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.
Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.
The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.
AGW is baloney anyway!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
RogerTheSurf wrote:
“…we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.”
Sooner or later this is going to happen ANYWAY as a result of peak oil. We’re in for the biggest economic shock in history unless we can get ahead of the curve.
We need to reduce oil consumption for so many other perfectly sane reasons, even if you do believe global warming to be a hoax.
Sean,
Absolutely correct.
However if the IPCC has its way, it will be a precipitated premature situation and the true economy will not be able to adjust without causing unneccesary suffering.
Also without the IPCC there will be no crippling wealth transfers.
As fossil fuels become shorter in supply, as indeed is inevitable, without interference, it will be a relatively slow process.
The rising prices will enable more difficult exploration to be viable which will cushion the process as well as allowing alternative technologies to substitute as much as is possible, without governments carrying out political motivated subsidised (read paid for by the taxpayer) projects.
When the price of energy is appropriate, there will be a rush of private investors in alternatives, some of which will create real jobs as opposed to tax payer funded “Green Inititaves” as we see happening now.
This is not to say that there will not be hardship in the long term, but at least it need not be premature.
Neither will there be the pretext of AGW that enables the syphoning off of wealth into a minorities hands.
Cheers
Roger