An intriguing question for Lord Stern

Man-made global warming has delayed the next ice age by 50,000 years, researchers have claimed.
The next ice age is not likely to begin until 100,000 years from now – 50,000 years later than would otherwise have been expected, according to a study by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

So, what would be the correct discount rate to use to model this?

The NPV is something above zero but how far?

18 thoughts on “An intriguing question for Lord Stern”

  1. What, literally, unbelievable bollocks. It is amazing that this kind of crap is funded and equally amazing that anyone gives it credibility.

  2. Remember that 1970s TV series “In Search Of…” with Leonard Nimoy? Find the “In Search Of… The Next Ice Age” on Youtube. It has a young climatologist on Baffin Island talking about how he’s measured the temperature and it’s the coldest for centuries, and formerly ice-free water is now not melting in the summer, and the Ice Age began 300 years ago.

    He’s now a Warmist.

  3. So Much For Subtlety

    Yet again Homer Simpson is proven to be a better guide than our Elders and Betters. He predicted that the pollution would cause the asteroid to burn up. He was right!

    Clearly we need to stop worrying and keep on keeping on.

    (More seriously, the idea that anyone has a clue what is going to happen in ten years time much less in ten thousand, is utterly absurd)

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    “john77
    @ Ian B
    *Of course* he is now a warmist. Because that is an easy way to claim that he was right in 197x”
    More likely that’s where the easy research grants are now.

  5. In 50,000 years time everyone’s left big toe will be green.

    I know, I know, but it has as much chance of being true as most of this crap.

  6. oooohh.. Can I get paid for making Statements about trends on geological timescales too?

    Where do I sign up?

    Disclaimer: I’m excused from oscalatory caressing of the gluteus. Got a note from my mum right here somewhere.

  7. Every few years I see the global cooling of the ’70s come up. The only thing that I have learned from these debates is that we just don’t understand climate well enough to predict what will happen in 10 years. If we ever get accurate data on what happens to an industrialized society on more than 1 planet of the course of millennium I could see a decent prediction happen.

  8. I should have done a degree in climate science. Seems like a good gig with excellent job security.

    The way it was explained to me was that we are living in an ice age. Ice ages have winter periods and summer periods. We are currently in a summer period. The winter periods last about 70000 years and the summer periods last about 10000 years.

    The current summer period has lasted longer than 10000 years.

    I don’t understand why people are complaining.

  9. Bloke in Costa Rica

    bif: of course you can have negative NPV. If I offer to sell you a perpetuity that gives you £1000 a year and the discount rate is 5%, then if I ask more than £20000 for it it has negative NPV.

    Where the parallel breaks down is that we will be paying the eco-freaks in perpetuity without getting anything out of it, certainly nothing up-front. “Throwing good money after bad” is nearer the mark.

  10. First hit on google.

    It was a myth then and it’s still a myth. There was no consensus around global cooling.

    Which eminent scientists do you believe? Or are you one of these that believe in a worldwide conspiracy, a mind-boggling super-lie?

    I dunno, scientists – who’d have ’em with their cranky ideas and their hatred of humanity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *