Inquiring minds?! Wherein the author jumps through hoops for a "skeptic" on the wonders of CO2 (that man has no influence on)

TokyoTom — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:57:00 GMT

An LvMI blogger sent me the following inquiry, which I post here - along with my response - as a public service. I note first that I am no climate expert, but someone who doesn`t mind a little scientific or other inquiry. Question : "I would like...(read more)

Jim Hansen: As CO2 climbs, what are the long-term warming effects of CURRENT CO2 levels?

TokyoTom — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:31:00 GMT

What do climate scientists say that recently obtained data about our past climate tells us about the consequences of long-term increases in atmospheric CO2 (and other GHGs)? They tell us that we are already at levels that, if sustained (and at current...(read more)

Rudimentary climate science; the role of CO2, oceans and volcanoes

TokyoTom — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:03:00 GMT

I am posting here a brief summary that I just sent to a Mises Blog contributor, in response to an inquiry I received: Thanks for your email. First, I'm no expert but simply read. With that as background, let me respond on a few points. I think that...(read more)

Reducing CO2 vs. expanding energy needs

TokyoTom — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:33:00 GMT

Ron Bailey of Reason , reporting from Bali, has an interesting post up summarizing the discussion by James Connaughton, director of President Bush's Council on Environmental Quality, on one small aspect of the climate conundrum, namely, what would...(read more)

Richard Tol and Marty Weitzman on The Costs of Ignoring Carbon

TokyoTom — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:28:00 GMT

There is a new paper out by economist Richard Tol that summarizes all of the economic work on climate change over the past two decades, in light of recent analyses, particularly the ground-breaking new work by Harvard's Marty Weitzman on how the "fat...(read more)

Bali: Murdoch & 149 Other Top Vile Collectivists/Capitalists Call for Global Poverty ...

TokyoTom — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 20:19:00 GMT

and for a legally binding UN framework to tackle climate change. Just who are these vile collectivists, red enviros, misanthropes, and others caught up in the totally groundless AGW hysteria?

[Snark Alert!]

Let's go to FOX News - which headlines "Top Corporations Demand Action on Global Warming". Fox says that "more than 150 global companies — worth nearly $4 trillion in market capitalization — have signed a petition urging "strong, early action on climate change"". Amazingly, the news report ends with a disclainer: "FOXNews.com is owned and operated by News Corporation, which is among the signatories of the Bali Communiqué." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314224,00.html

Just what the heck is going on?

On November 30, UK and EU Corporate Leaders Groups on Climate Change (spearheaded by the Prince of Wales) published the "Bali Communiqué", by which leaders of 150 global companies encouraged world leaders to work for a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change.

The Bali Communiqué calls for:

"a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change";
"emission reduction targets to be guided primarily by science";
"those countries that have already industrialised to make the greatest effort"; and
"world leaders to seize the window of opportunity and agree a work plan of negotiations to ensure an agreement can come into force post 2012 (when the existing Kyoto Protocol expires)"

The vile collectivists provided the following business case:

"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Climate change presents very serious global social, environmental and economic risks and it demands an urgent global response.

"As business leaders, it is our belief that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs of not acting:

"The economic and geopolitical costs of unabated climate change could be very severe and globally disruptive. All countries and economies will be affected, but it will be the poorest countries that will suffer earliest and the most

The costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change are manageable, especially if guided by a common international vision

Each year we delay action to control global emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that will likely necessitate even steeper reductions in the future, causing potentially greater economic, environmental and social disruption.

The shift to a low-carbon economy will create significant business opportunities. New markets for low carbon technologies and products, worth billions of dollars, will be created if the world acts on the scale required

"In summary, we believe that tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy. Ignoring it will ultimately undermine economic growth.

"It is our view that a sufficiently ambitious, international and comprehensive legally-binding United Nations agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will provide business with the certainty it needs to scale up global investment in low-carbon technologies. We believe that an enhanced and extended carbon market needs to be part of this framework as it offers the necessary flexibility, allows for a cost-effective transition and provides financial support to developing countries."

Companies supporting the communiqué included the following:

US-based: Coca-Cola, Dupont, Gap, GE, Johnson and Johnson, Nike, Pacific Gas and Electric, Sun Microsystems and United Technologies.

European-based: Anglo-American, British Airways, F&C Asset Management, Ferrovial, Nestle, Nokia, Rolls Royce, Shell, Tesco, Virgin and Volkswagen.

Australian-based: Insurance Australia Group, Macquarie, National Australia Bank, News Corporation and Westpac.

Chinese: Shanghai Electric, Zhufeng Technology and Suntech.

More here: http://www.balicommunique.com/communique.html

Well, it's clear that they are all deluded and don't care about impoverishing the rest of the world. They certainly know nothing about science, economics or the potential difficulties that their companies might confront in facing the challenges that they allege. They're just sycophants and fellow-travellers of the evil, misanthropic "watermelon" enviros. http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx.