Zach LarkinsKYOTO VIII (cont'd)
Sir Nicholas Stern was the former chief economist of the World Bank and he is well ensconced in the Suzuki/Gore camp of the effects of global warming. He is as hysterical as these two to such an extent that his proclamations about the dire effects of global warming caused British Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, to urge immediate action to stem global warming. That's right folks, immediate action. You see, if we don't act now, we'll all be literal toast within hours.
His study has caused some prominent environmentalists to denounce his findings as outrageous and bereft of credibility. His greatest critic is Dr. Richard S.J. Tol, who issued a stronger denunciation, and has better environmental credentials, than Sir Stern.
You see, Tol doesn't think the evidence is in on global warming and its effects so he doesn't think there's any reason to rush into action. That makes him a Denier. But Tol is no fringe outsider to the scientific debate. He is at the centre of the academic investigation of global warming, a central figure in the scientific establishment that has been developing the models and the knowledge to understand the global warming phenomenon. At the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, considered by the Suzuki/Gore crowd to be the authoritative body in the field, Tol is involved as an author in all three of its Working Groups. He is also an author and editor of the United Nations Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies, and a mover and shaker in the prestigious European Climate Forum. This man is not some lunatic looking in from the outside. He takes global warming seriously and has dedicated his professional life to making a contribution for the better in climate policy and related fields.
Because of his fame and immense reputation, the Stern report itself relied on Tol's work in coming to its conclusions. However, they made some rather glaring errors. Sir Nicholas plucked a figure ($29 per ton of carbon dioxide) from a range that Tol prepared describing the possible costs of CO2 emissions, without divulging that in the very same study Tol concluded that the actual costs "are likely to be substantially smaller" than $14 per ton of CO2. In an assessment of the potential consequences of rising sea levels, Sir Nicholas quoted a study co- authored by Tol that referred to the "millions at risk," ignoring that the same study then suggested greatly reduced consequences for those millions due to the ability of humans to adapt to change. And isn't adaptability what mankind is all about?
Sir Nicholas not only assumed worst possible cases, he also assumed that humans are passive creatures, devoid of any ingenuity, who would be helpless victims to changes in the world around them. Tol considers Sir Nicholas's conclusions "preposterous." His conclusion is that the Stern review can be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent. Tol's view is that global warming creates benefits as well as harms, and in the short term, the benefits are especially pronounced. A native of the Netherlands, he is intimately familiar with dikes and other low-cost adaptive technologies, and the ability of humans in meeting challenges in their environment. To assume that humans in the future would not use their ingenuity and resourcefulness in sensible ways defies the history of mankind and ultimately serves no one.
Tol believes that global warming is real and measures to mitigate it should be taken. But unlike the advocates who believe that the science is settled, and the global warming debate is over, he thinks that much research needs to be done before we know how best to respond. "There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously," he explains. "We've got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into 'actionism,' which then becomes very expensive."
His study has caused some prominent environmentalists to denounce his findings as outrageous and bereft of credibility. His greatest critic is Dr. Richard S.J. Tol, who issued a stronger denunciation, and has better environmental credentials, than Sir Stern.
Sir Nicholas not only assumed worst possible cases, he also assumed that humans are passive creatures, devoid of any ingenuity, who would be helpless victims to changes in the world around them. Tol considers Sir Nicholas's conclusions "preposterous." His conclusion is that the Stern review can be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent. Tol's view is that global warming creates benefits as well as harms, and in the short term, the benefits are especially pronounced. A native of the Netherlands, he is intimately familiar with dikes and other low-cost adaptive technologies, and the ability of humans in meeting challenges in their environment. To assume that humans in the future would not use their ingenuity and resourcefulness in sensible ways defies the history of mankind and ultimately serves no one.
Tol believes that global warming is real and measures to mitigate it should be taken. But unlike the advocates who believe that the science is settled, and the global warming debate is over, he thinks that much research needs to be done before we know how best to respond. "There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously," he explains. "We've got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into 'actionism,' which then becomes very expensive."
