They’ve decided that they are going to spin away the notion in any way they can
(UK Guardian) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has corrected a controversial claim that small amounts of global warming could have overall positive economic impacts, after I pointed out that it was based on inaccurate information.
The final version of the IPCC’s report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability was published without fanfare on the web this week, including a chapter on Key Economic Sectors and Services.
The final draft of the chapter, which was published in April, featured a section on the aggregate economic impacts of climate change, containing the statement: “Climate change may be beneficial for moderate climate change but turn negative for greater warming.â€
But the version published this week omits the statement because it was based on faulty data.
You know, faulty data like history and reality. These people are shameless, and you had to know they would manufacture a “reason” to remove the phrase. Humanity has done better during Holcombe warm periods than Holcombe cool periods. This is all about politics, not science.
[…] The Pirate’s Cove: UN Decides It Really Does Not Like Notion That “Climate Change†Can Be Good For Economy […]
Teach,
You’ve embarrassed yourself again. Please read Professor Tol’s corrections on his error laden 2009 paper that served as the basis for the original comment.
http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.28.2.221
The corrections reversed his conclusion from global warming being economically beneficial to global warming being economically harmful.
If you have data and evidence more relevant than Professor Tol’s corrected data you should reveal it!
Do you favor including false data, like Dr. Tol’s original work, just because it supports your belief system, or should Dr. Tol use the best data available?
“UN Decides It Really Does Not Like Notion That “Climate Change†Can Be Good For Economy” — If you had, you know, taken the time to investigate, you would have discovered that the skeptic economist, Dr. Richard Tol, published a paper in 2009 that was filled with mistakes. Dr. Tol, not others, not “they”, recently corrected HIS faulty data, changing HIS conclusions.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HELP THE WORLD’S ECONOMIES.
The prior conclusion was based on faulty data, which has now, fortunately, been corrected.
Being scientifically honest is a rare trait in skeptics, so kudos to Professor Tol. It took him 5 years but he finally corrected his faulty data.
Are you going to correct YOUR faulty data now and update your post?
Or are you comfortable trying to be part of the right-wing cabal continuing to spread disinformation?
It’s a tough choice.
Teach,
You won’t retract your lie?
What lie Jeffery?
Did the IPCC post a paper that included the claim that global warming was beneficial?
Was all of the data available at the time the paper was published?
Has the paper been changed now?
The IPCC changed a paper because the author now claims the original data was “faulty.” So should we trust the author’s paper now? Or from 2009?
Should we trust the IPCC who allegedly peer reviews everything they publish?
There is no lie in the post, Jeffery. All you have done is try to spin what a large number of people have maintained and this proves – papers by the IPCC are not reliable.
You have always claimed the IPCC was scientifically sound. This post and the retraction shows they are not.
The only liar in this is you.
Teach?
Teach,
This episode proves that you and your minions don’t possess the mental horsepower to effectively lie about science issues.
So you have the mental horsepower to effectively lie?
That’s an interesting admission.
The fact of the matter is that there was no lie in Teach’s post but rather only your ability to understand what was said. That brings into question your mental capabilities (or lack thereof.)
Teach,
Let me recap so you and your minion can understand.
A late draft (April) of the IPCC’s report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability contained the false statement, “Climate change may be beneficial for moderate climate change but turn negative for greater warming.†This false statement was caught before the final version (October) was published.
Skeptic and Professor Richard Tol had published a deeply flawed paper and corrected his calculations, added ignored data and reversed his flawed conclusions. These conclusions had made their way into the April IPCC draft, since Skeptics are also encouraged to contribute. His false contribution was removed before being published recently. When Skeptic Tol calculated correctly and included all the available data, the evidence swung against his original and flawed conclusion.
Your remaining minion claims that the IPCC should have caught the false information before it was published. That’s exactly what they did.
No one has accused Skeptic Professor Tol of being dishonest or committing fraud, although it is evident he was very sloppy.
Your entire post was a lie.