Cretinous nonsense:

Studies show that average global incomes could be significantly reduced, perhaps by as much as
one-quarter by the end of the century, if limited or no action is taken to reduce carbon emissions.

That’s from the Bank of England and they at least should know better.

The actual worry is that incomes could be reduced by 25% from where they would be without climate change. We do also expect incomes to be some 3 to 5 times higher then than now. It’s the reduction in their being 3 or 5 times higher, not reductions from incomes now.

24 thoughts on “Gaaah!”

  1. “as much as one-quarter by the end of the century”

    Even if that’s true, we’re meant to worry about something that will happen in 81 years time?

  2. Are there any indicators in markets with relation to the effects of climate change?

    For example, have holiday rental locations changed to reflect people moving from places that are too damn hot now, to places more pleasant, or new opportunities for places that used to be a little too cool? Are there effects in insurance quotations, umbrella and parasol sales data?

  3. Interestingly, yes. A recent paper says that coastal housing at risk of flooding has reduced in price by 3 or 4% respective to that less threatened.

    But then how much that is real and how much engendered by hysteria…..

  4. Mark Carnage stays on resolutely on message no matter how moronic it makes him appear. I have approached him to do a shoot and he insists it must be with a transexual transvestite. They are hard to locate

  5. Everyone’s income is being reduced by the government wazzing away taxpayers’money on non solutions to the non problem of climate change.

  6. Since reducing carbon (sic) emissions involves taxation and reducing economic activity which is what causes said emissions, then reducing carbon dioxide emissions will reduce global incomes to two turnips and a handful of corn.

    Note: there is no evidence that emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels correlates to an increase in the climate system heat budget. In fact data for the last twenty years shows that despite significant increase in emissions, not only has temperature variation levelled, but over the last near decade declined.

    If there is a causal link between two variable there MUST be correlation. There is none in this case. Insisting global warming is ‘happening’ does not make it so.

    There has never been climate stasis. Are we richer or poorer today than 10 000 years ago because of/despite dramatic climate change?

  7. Energy is an input to wealth creation, (some would say the largest input behind human ingenuity.)

    Deliberately making a country’s energy supply more expensive and less reliable will obviously hamper wealth creation.

    Therefore, making futile efforts to control the weather by degrading our energy supply will result in less income per person.

    That is unless the misanthropic green cultists get their way and there are a lot fewer people to spread the wealth among. But even then, they’ll take steps to ensure that the majority of the survivors live like dark age peasants.

  8. The fact is that predicting this kind of stuff is actually impossible. It’s a set of assumptions that decides the result. One clue to all that is how far ahead they go, in this case beyond the threshold of provability. How about some sort of prediction we can check in ten years?

  9. Interestingly, yes. A recent paper says that coastal housing at risk of flooding has reduced in price by 3 or 4% respective to that less threatened.

    OK, flood risk properties are cheaper. But with global sea level rise steady at ~2.5 mm per year, it’s local conditions, like subsidence on the coast of East Anglia, that causes the flood risk, not “climate change”.

  10. So rather than risk the possibility of incomes in 80 years time being 25% less than they would have been we’ll just fuck the considerably poorer people in the present day???

  11. @Rhoda
    They did, in 1997. A whole range of models. A couple are still teneble. But bear in mind that If you do enough predictions one of them will be near enough. The average of the sundry predictions is definitely wrong.
    Unfortunately only the return of the little ice age, or the deaths of the main proponents will free us of this nonsense. That or a world takeover by the Chinese who are ignoring the theory.
    As to Mr. Carney, when he acquires a reputation for spot on predictions in his own discipline I will be more inclined to take notice. Wasn’t he amongst the experts predicting a recession and mass unemployment should we vote to leave the EU?

  12. Anonymous ex central banker

    So the people working on this have incomes which depends on this being a big deal. The people reviewing this have careers which depend on being able to make things out to be a big deal. The people presenting this to Carney for approval have careers that depend on not upsetting the great man.

    Which part of that creates a robust checking process?

  13. Global warmists: “Let’s spend trillions of pounds now so people in 100 years are theoretically richer!”

    Also global warmists: “The Earth can’t sustain first world lifestyles. Economic growth is The Debil!”

  14. Imagine reading, in 1938, a prediction of what incomes would be in 2019. Now imagine taking that seriously.

  15. Slightly OT. A bunch of eco-loons have super-glued themselves to the doors of Shell’s London offices. Jus’ wundrin’ if we should just leave them there…….

  16. “I have approached him to do a shoot and he insists it must be with a transexual transvestite. They are hard to locate”
    Try Transylvania.

  17. Ignore all the pseudo-science (“the effect of placing ‘climate’ in front of scientist is similar to placing ‘witch’ in front of doctor”) – look at the underlying economic assumptions on which the IPCC projections are based. In order to get to their apocalyptic scenarios for global temperature, they must assume (i) that global GDP in 2100 will be many times greater than today, and (ii) CO2 emissions will increase in proportion to GDP – in other words we’ll be using the same technologies as today, but increased by some substantial factor to represent growth.

    Ignoring (as I said) the broken climate models, how many people think this is realistic? What would have a projection made in 1919 of today’s technology look like?

  18. “They are onboard with the scare.”

    Mark Carney clearly gets an earful of eco-shit at home:

    Diana Carney’s ‘strong eco-views are vented on her website ecoproductsthatwork. The site contains tips on eco-lip balm, gardening with pots made from fired cow dung, $10 vegan shoes, and kid-friendly make-your-own cosmetics kits. However, she insists she is no “eco-purist”, admitting her “journey towards natural products has not always been smooth”.’

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9706143/Ten-facts-about-Diana-Carney-wife-of-the-new-Bank-of-England-Governor-Mark-Carney.html

  19. No, not really, There is indeed the assumption of much richer. Dependent upon model 5 to 11 times richer in 2100 than 1990. But there are many different assumptions about technology. A1FI – what most call “business as usual” although this is wrong, and also about the same as RCP 8.5 in the more recent model set, assumes that we regress in technology. We end up using more coal. Not just more coal, but coal for a higher portion of all energy consumption.

    A1T, which says we use less to no coal in 80 years time, lots of solar, hydro, nuclear maybe, shows there is in fact no problem to worry about anyway.

    The models do discuss different technology paths. It’s just that no one pays any attention to the models which show we don’t need to overthrow capitalism nor civilisation.

  20. The site contains tips on eco-lip balm, gardening with pots made from fired cow dung, $10 vegan shoes, and kid-friendly make-your-own cosmetics kits.

    All this and yet the Guardian Left still hates him.

  21. John B, your first statement is correct. A simple graph of Global Mean Temperature and concentration of atmospheric CO2 over the last 50 years falsifies the MMGW CO2 theory. It is nonsense, but persists.

    “If there is a causal link between two variable there MUST be correlation. There is none in this case.”

    Not necessarily. Atmospheric CO2 might influence global mean temperature. Many climate science skeptics believe it does. But natural, and perhaps still unknown, factors overwhelm any such influence, if it exists. At this point, then, it is just a question of quantification. Professional climatists and politicians declare it is very important. Skeptics, not so much. I say the influence approaches zero.

    If there is some human input, the graph of correlation shows it is too small to worry about. It doesn’t show there is no influence. It doesn’t show there is influence. But it does show that CO2 is NOT a principal factor.

Leave a Reply

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