Tol said the IPCC emphasized the
risks of climate change far more than the opportunities to adapt. A
Reuters count shows the final draft has 139 mentions of "risk" and 8 of
"opportunity".
Tol said
farmers, for instance, could grow new crops if the climate in their
region became hotter, wetter or drier. "They will adapt. Farmers are not
stupid," he said.
He said
the report played down possible economic benefits of low levels of
warming. Less cold winters may mean fewer deaths among the elderly, and
crops may grow better in some regions.
"It is pretty damn obvious that there are positive impacts of climate
change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them," he
said. But he said temperatures were set to rise to levels this century
that would be damaging overall.
That sounds like something an economist would say. People will adapt and figure things out and that might be a benefit of global warming. However, his fellow scientists seem to disagree:
Another expert criticized Tol, saying his IPCC chapter exaggerated possible benefits.
"Of the 19 studies he surveyed only one shows net positive benefits
from warming. And it's the one he wrote," said Bob Ward, policy and
communications director of the Grantham Research Unit on Climate Change
and the Environment at the London School of Economics.
Um, shouldn't there be more science behind trying to figure out the benefits from warming? I mean only one guy did any research on it? Or maybe that doesn't factor into the scare tactics that the Global Warming crowd wants to put on everyone.
1 comment:
The warming trend since the depths of the Little Ice Age, and why the warming stopped in 2001, are accurately (95% correlation since before 1900) explained by only two drivers.
CO2 is not one of them.
Search AGWunveiled to see what they are.
Post a Comment