Making poverty permanent

The World Bank thinks we can end poverty by making energy more expensive.

Comments

[golf charlie]

What a lovely idea, proposed by people who are determined to make sure they will be the last to prove it wrong, but don't mind who suffers as part of their ideological thinking.

[Alan the Brit]

As far as I can tell, that has always been the intention. Expensive energy in a world of plenty, increases poverty for those already poor, & pushes those on the edges into it, only the elite super-rich will avoid it! If they succeed. I have a feeling that day, you know, the one when the revolution came, could be looming ever closer!

[Mike Jackson]

There are two ways of eliminating poverty and eliminating the poor doesn't strike me as the preferable option. Though it does seem to be the preferred option with some people.

[Kevin Marshall]

For those on the left, poverty is a relative concept. By cutting the living standards of those in the developed countries, global inequality is massively reduced. This can be done by combining the policies of high energy costs and massive subsidies to the poorer countries.

[golf charlie]

Kevin Marshall 2:28, and the beauty of it is, that highly paid jobs, to ensure no one finds out it isn't working, are guaranteed for those that dreamt it up along with their acolytes.

[SadButMadLad]

@Mike Jackson. The other way of eliminating poverty is trade. That's why I like the phrase "Trade not Aid" as the way to help Africa (other developing countries exist in other continents) progress to the same state that we in the West are at the moment. Greens seem to want to do the usual lefty thing of going for the lowest common denominator and want us to go backwards to meet the developing countries.

[richard]

Remarkable Declines in Global Poverty, But Major ...
www.worldbank.org/.../remarkab...
World poverty is shrinking rapidly, new index reveals - The ...
www.theguardian.com ›
Income inequality: poverty falling faster than ever but the 1 ...
www.theguardian.com ›
How did the global poverty rate halve in 20 years?
www.economist.com/b
Towards the end of poverty | The Economist
www.economist.com/.../21578665......
1 Jun 2013 - Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years.
World Poverty Drops, With China Leading the Way - US News
www.usnews.com/.../world-pover...

[Gamecock]

SBML, you need property rights as well as trade to eliminate poverty.

Or, as Mike Jackson, just kill the poor. I am pleased that that option never occurred to me.

[richard]

even the guardian reported this-

World poverty is shrinking rapidly, new index reveals - The ...
www.theguardian.com › Society › Poverty
16 Mar 2013 - The report, by Oxford University's poverty and human development initiative, predicts ... see acute poverty eradicated within 20 years if they continue at present rates. .

[Phillip Bratby]

For anyone who hasn't seen it Don't Panic - How to End Poverty in 15 Years by Professor Hans Rosling is well worth watching. I don't recall that making energy more expensive with carbon taxes was part of the solution.

[golf charlie]

Malthusians would prefer death rates to exceed birth rates, for as long and as often as it takes, provided they are not included in their own planning.

[David Porter]

So Richard, what is your point?
Get it of your chest and tell us what you really think. Don't hide behind the Gruniard.

[Denis Ables]

Wiping out the poor will be the final step of the liberals ... rather ironic.

President Obama, on his recent trip to Alaska, referred to two receding glaciers as examples of “climate change”. His (and his cohort’s) use of the term “climate change” means significant global warming due to human activity, mostly involving fossil fuel usage.) However, one of those glaciers, “Exit”, has been receding since 1750, a century before co2 began increasing and two centuries before co2 could have had any noticeable impact on temperature. Neither he nor the major news media mentioned several other Alaskan glaciers, including “Hubbard” and “Taku”, which have been advancing. Obviously both phenomenon cannot be attributed to global warming. (it is true that some alarmists seriously claim that co2 increase can simultaneously bring on both warming and cooling events!)

Consider the serious implication if no glaciers were receding. That would imply that our current warm period has ended and the next ice age was underway! The average duration over the past 1.3 million years for ice ages is 90,000 years. The warmer intervals between ice ages (interglacial periods, one of which we are now enjoying) average just 10,000 years. We are likely near the end of our current warming period. Instead of concern about some floodiing in NY City, try wrapping your mind around what actually happened not very long ago, on a geologic basis - a mile high glacier parked on the Big Apple!

The claims of a “97% consensus” have been thoroughly debunked. Among other problems these unprofessional “surveys” counted many skeptics as part of their supposed consensus. These “surveyors” posed ambiguous questions and made no distinction between the IPCC cabal, which claims human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of global warming, and other respondents (mostly skeptics) who merely acknowledged that increasing co2 MIGHT have SOME impact on global warming. Had those surveys been designed (and handled) by unbiased professionals the result may well have shown that skeptics were actually in the majority, but it matters not, since scientific truths are not dependent on vote counts.

When you strike a match that action should have some impact on global warming (unlikely measurable). The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is well known, but also turns out to have no measurable impact on global temperature. That’s because urban areas represent only a very small portion of the earth’s surface area and even the rural areas immediately surrounding an UHI show no measurable temperature impact from that UHI. Nevertheless, no credible skeptic is likely to flatly declare that human activity is having NO impact on global warming. The issues to be resolved are that the IPCC, and its supporters, claim that (1) co2 increase causes global warming and (2) human activity, which appears to be responsible for most of the co2 increase, is therefore the principle cause of the warming. There is no empirical evidence that co2 level has ever, even over geologic periods when it was much higher than now, had any impact on global temperature. This renders (1) questionable and makes (2) moot until (1) is resolved.

The term “climate change”, until recently, referred to 4 billion years of natural climate events and included such things as ice ages. Now, and with full cooperation of the major news media, “climate change” instead means “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (CAGW), and skeptics are accused of being “climate change” deniers. (“catastrophic” because it seems clear that a steadily increasing co2 level at some point would surely lead to that outcome.) Assuming we are causing this increase, how much time do we have to resolve this issue? Will it perhaps be naturally resolved “naturally”, if nothing else, perhaps by our next ice age?

Well, it turns out that during most of our planet’s history the co2 level has been several times higher than now, and yet, even over geologic periods, there is no empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER had any impact on the global temperature. In fact, over geologic periods there is a strong correlation showing the opposite - that temperature variation occurs FIRST and only 800 to 2800 years LATER do similar variations show up in the co2 level. While correlation does not imply causation this one obviously rules out the possibility of a similar correlation satisfying the alarmist claims. There are also no claims that co2 level has any direct impact on climate other than via warming.

Dr. Craig Idso (co2science.org) states that a comparison of our current interglacial with the four immediately prior interglacials (a span of about 340,000 years) shows that, while co2 level is now 40% higher, our current temperature is about two degrees cooler. Obviously co2, even at its now higher level, is having little, if any, impact on global temperature. Since both co2 level and UHI appear to be ruled out insofar as having any impact on global temperature, what is the basis for the IPCC claim that human activity is the PRINCIPLE cause of our warming?

Monckton’s analysis demonstrates conclusively that our two weather satellites show no additional temperature increase for the past 18+ years and it is clear that the computer models did not expect, nor can they account for what happened to that missing heat. Monckton’s analysis can be found here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/09/02/a-new-record-pause-length-satellite-data-no-global-warming-for-18-years-8-months/

There is no physical basis for claiming that the “missing heat” could disappear into the ocean, sink unnoticed past 3,600 ARGO buoys, subsequently hide in the deep ocean, and somehow later re-surface and escape back into the atmosphere. Neither is the small increase in recent ocean temperature sufficient to explain the “missing heat”. The speculation brought on by this hiatus in temperature increase has, in a relatively short period, evolved into dozens of different excuses, but the usual suspects invariably continue to insist the science is “settled”.

It’s also well known that the capability of co2 to influence warming diminishes as its level increases. A greenhouse is hardly an adequate model for our open atmosphere because there is no convection from within a real greenhouse, and satellites detect heat escaping to space. Neither are greenhouses subject to ocean or other planetary-level feedbacks. Also, computer models cannot deal with ongoing chaotic and unpredictable events (volcano eruptions, earthquakes, bombardment by asteroids and comets, plate tectonics, continental shift) which all influence climate.

The computer models have consistently projected higher temperature increases than were subsequently recorded, and this discrepancy has continued even after several rounds of revisions to the models. What’s more, the spread between actual temperature and computer projected temperatures has continued to WIDEN. Climate model results are not evidence of anything apart from the author(s) limited understanding and possible confirmation biases. All these models ASSUME that water vapor is the real culprit, creating 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as supposedly brought on directly by co2 increase. Feedbacks are not well understood, yet modelers assume not only that water vapor feedback is positive, but that its impact on temperature is 2 to 3 times that of the co2 impact (which itself is in question.) Cloud cover, one aspect of water vapor, clearly appears to have a cooling rather than a warming effect. Without the water vapor feedback assumption, the threat of increasing co2 impacting temperature drops by 75%.

Our current co2 level is 400 ppmv, (parts per million by volume) clearly a trace gas, which can also be stated as 4/100 of one percent of the atmosphere, by volume. (4/100 of one percent of a mile is about 2 feet). The annual rate of increase in co2 is about 2 ppmv, so co2 level is estimated to reach 600 ppmv by 2100. That still represents a trace gas. A crowded gym with poor ventilation may reach 1,000 ppmv. Submarine crews survive for months in a 5,000 to 8,000 + ppmv environment. Plants, grow faster, healthier, produce more oxygen, and need less water in higher co2 environments. Our earth is greening even as this controversy continues.

The proponents of CAGW base their entire hypothesis on less than 30 years of climate history. Even the most rabid CAGW scientists recognize that any temperature impact brought on by increasing co2 would have taken (at 2ppmv per year) until about 1950 before having any possible measurable impact on global temperature. While co2 began rising in the mid 1800s our current warming (such as it is) began, by definition, (Dr. David Evans, Aussie climatologist) at the bottom of the Little Ice Age, in the mid 1600s. That implies 300 years (1650 to 1950) of natural warming. There was also some serious warming during the 1930s, and a mild cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s, followed by THE warming, from the mid 1970s to about 1998. Although it remains warm there has been no additional warming since about 1998 according to both weather satellites. (The satellite data also agrees well with weather balloon data.)

It is actual data which brings out all these conflicts with alarmist claims, so what about their greenhouse gas theory? A necessary condition to be satisfied by the theory is that greenhouse gases must generate a “hotspot” warming pattern in our troposphere. However, no such hotspot has been found, and not for lack of searching. The theory is therefore completely compromised. The preponderance of conflicting data should therefore not be surprising. For a robust discussion on the hotspot signature see: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/so-is-the-hotspot-a-fingerprint-or-signature-is-it-unique/

There are 5 global temperature datasets, 3 terrestrial and 2 satellite. However, according to Phil Jones (2003) the three terrestrial datasets all utilize 90 to 95% of the same raw data. There are three sets of terrestrial temperature datasets only because three separate organizations are involved and each makes its own revisions to the raw data. With regard to satellites, as of September 2015, UAH shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 5 months and RSS shows no additional warming for the past 18 years and 8 months. (However, as Monckton points out, this could change because the upcoming el Nino, a natural warming event, may bring on some additional temporary warming.) Neither is this 18+ year duration of no additional warming cherry picked. That result depends solely on the data itself and answers a relevant question, namely – for how long has there been no additional warming? If the same analysis used on the two satellites is instead applied to the mean of all 5 datasets, there has been no additional warming for the past 13+ years. (However, since all three terrestrial datasets are basically derived from the same raw data, the 3/5 weighting for terrestrial data in that calculation is overly generous. Acknowledgement of that would further increase the 13 years.)

The three terrestrial datasets have other problems. Even the current raw data must be continually revised because many stations are located within or near UHIs and that effect, which often changes over time, must be re-ESTIMATED and eliminated. (Why the historic terrestrial data also needs revision and invariably such “corrections” produce more warming is not so obvious.) The distance between some land stations may be as much as 1200km, and there are even fewer stations in remote (jungles, mountains, deserts, plains, grasslands, etc.) areas. Finally, many land based temperature stations do not satisfy even the basic requirements laid down by the government. (Why have NOAA and NASA not at least included a separate analysis, for comparison purposes, using only raw data from rural locations? This subset should require few, if any ongoing revisions. Both NASA and NOAA strictly base their claims on the terrestrial data. Why? And never bother to provide that caveat in their public declarations. Why?)

Some alarmists, and that also includes many liberal politicians, continue even now to claim severe weather events and sea level rise are “evidence” of CAGW. Sea level has been rising for the past 15,000 years, ever since the last ice age BEGAN melting, and sea level is now up 400+ feet. The overall rate of sea level increase has been steadily dropping for the past several thousand years. Sea level rise is now at a miniscule 1 to 2 mm per YEAR, (1 mm = 4/100 of one inch. In 25 years, the level would be up one inch, probably less because the rate continues to drop.) Claims of higher increases in sea level in some areas are clearly not taking into account the effects of wind, erosion, or subsidence. A graph showing sea level over the past 12-15 thousand years should be sufficient to assuage any rational person as to what is happening. In the case of severe weather events various statistical analysis have demonstrated conclusively that, for the past several decades, these events have all remained within natural climate variation (so no measurable effect attributable to co2 level or warming). Hurricanes, typhoons, tornados, floods, rain, and droughts have been no more severe nor more frequent during the past several decades. Tthe costs incurred by severe weather have generally increased because of growing populations in those areas.

At least one well known member of the IPCC cabal, Phil Jones, stated that if the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was global and as warm as now, then “that’s another ballgame”. The Climate Gate email conversations showed concern about the MWP. (In fact, at least one email made clear that they had to get rid of the MWP !) The IPCC and its cohort also continue to insist that the MWP was only a regional phenomenon, and not as warm as now. This completely unjustifiable claim is apparently an attempt to avoid having to deal with an embarrassing question -- “If the MWP, a natural event 1,000 years ago, was as warm (probably warmer) than now, why do you think humans are the cause of our current warming?” Certainly any credible scientist who was a proponent of CAGW should have demanded that a global investigation be undertaken to confirm whether the MWP was global. But this alarmist group chose instead to ignore the evidence and cling to their belief. They instead demand that the skeptics provide evidence that the MWP was global and as warm or warmer than now. Think about that. If even one region remote from Europe shows the same warming trend, their claim that the MWP was merely regional begins to crumble. As it turns out, higher temperatures during the MWP and the MWP trend show up in numerous remote locations.

Ironically, there were numerous peer-reviewed studies available showing the MWP to be global and as warm, likely warmer, long before the alarmist position became public, even before their cries reverted from claims of oncoming ice age to global warming. (Holdren, science adviser to Obama, was an alarmist for cooling before becoming an alarmist for warming.) The alarmist denials continue even now, in spite of new confirming studies continuing to show up regularly, as often as weekly. The website co2science.org has links to all the MWP peer reviewed studies. These confirming studies have employed various temperature proxies, including some newer methods not available during earlier studies. And then there are the results from 6,000 boreholes around the globe which independently confirm that the MWP trend was indeed global.

The Alaskan Mendenhall Glacier, recently retreated sufficiently to expose some splintered tree trunks (dated 1000+ years old) preserved in their original upright positions. Receding Swiss glaciers have revealed 4,000 year-old trees which indicate that forests were present earlier at that latitude. (It is also apparent that the glaciers had retreated considerably further north from there!) Antique vineyards dating back to the MWP have also been exposed in Scandinavia and the Alps at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown even today. Burial sites have been found beneath the permafrost. Attempts to brush off that aggregation of information as “anecdotal evidence” is ludicrous. Claiming that the dating of these recently exposed splintered tree trunks may be inaccurate is hardly relevant because that in no way eliminates the fact that there were warmer durations than now, when co2 level was lower, and this took place at latitudes where trees can no longer grow.

What’s more, there were several earlier warm durations during this interglacial before the MWP, all warmer than the MWP. Even the IPCC only claims that our current warming is a record for the past 800 years, and with less likelihood, (but no justification provided) for the past 1200 years. Lord Monckton points out that while the IPCC has finally admitted in its latest report that the current RATE of warming is now lower than published earlier, their committee (which reviews every word of their public report multiple times) has still somehow managed to avoid correcting their erroneous out-years high temperature estimate.

In late 2014 both NASA and NOAA claimed that 2014 was the “hottest” year, but both backed down after skeptics pointed out that, if their same analysis had been applied to satellite data, then 2014 ranking would have been either 3rd or 6th hottest. (Both results imply at least a short term cooling is underway.) Also, neither agency felt the need to include in their initial press release that the difference amongst recent annual global temperatures was miniscule, (a few hundredths of one degree) so well within the uncertainty error, which renders their contrived comparison across recent years meaningless. The major news media, as usual, jumped on their original news (2014 “hottest”) release, but overlooked the NOAA/NASA subsequent retreat. These two agencies are apparently still at it, recently claiming that June 2015 was the “hottest” month. There has also been no accompanying acknowledgement that sea ice extent in the Arctic recently increased considerably and sea ice extent in the southern hemisphere continues to break records. Neither was it noted that new weather trends begin at the two poles. Has everyone forgotten that in summers of 1959-1962 the North Pole was visited by the Coast Guard cutter Storis, (along with submarines and other ships) in open water? Eisenhower’s concern about the ”military/industrial” complex has obviously evolved into something else -- the “government/science” complex ??

Quite recently the two agencies (now evidently desperate) decided to revise the sea surface temperatures in an apparent effort to do away with the temperature “hiatus”. But, as CFACT points out “…NOAA “adjusted” sea-surface temperature (SST) data from buoys upward by .12 degrees C, to make them ‘homogeneous’ with lengthier records from past engine intake systems in ships. However, engine intake data are ‘clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the ships, and that data were never intended for scientific use – whereas the global buoy network was designed for environmental monitoring”. These agencies also recently declared that their three terrestrial datasets are “independent”, which, as discussed earlier, is dubious, at best.

To summarize: It’s been known for several years that the greenhouse gas theory does not satisfy even the basic NECESSARY condition to be valid – no “hotspot”. The analysis is clear that severe weather and our current warming are within natural climate variation. In fact, it’s obviously been much warmer than now earlier in this interglacial. There is no empirical evidence showing co2 increase has ever had any impact on the planet’s temperature. We therefore face only one issue, a rising co2 level which appears to be at least partly brought on by human activity. It is clear that the current rate of increase in co2 level permits us time to proceed cautiously. This is a longer term problem, certainly not an immediate crisis. Certainly the current larger threat is politicians’ rush to implement costly non-solutions.

Then there is our government’s current “solution” for this doubtful problem. Obama wants to reduce electrical power emissions by 32% by 2030. The following is quoted directly from Joanne Nova’ website which merely confirms what the EPA administrator, Gina McCarthy, recently admitted:

This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100.

The mission of the UN’s well-funded IPCC was to identify human impact on climate. Would anyone expect the IPCC (or any such bureaucracy) to report back to its funding sources that “it’s apparently just Mother Nature at work?” Would the UN even permit the IPCC to reach such a conclusion? Large western governments all view this issue as an opportunity, to (among other things) gain more control over the fossil fuel industry, and to introduce new taxes. Small countries are also onboard because they have been promised remuneration for the “climate change” pain supposedly imposed on them by the larger countries. (You can be sure any UN document on the subject will include issues related to “remuneration”.)

Whether these alarmists are “useful idiots”, or willing to lie because they believe in some higher principle (one-world government, abhor the fossil fuel industry, or want to transfer western resources to third world countries) hardly matters. The road to hell is paved with “good” intentions. 10/27

[Stephen Richards]

Let's get one thing very straight. None of the warmistas is unaware of the result of their drive to stop Fossil Fuel usage. They know very well that it will kill many older and younger, poorer and weaker people. They simply don't care what gets hurt in the drive to take control of the planet and everything on it.

UN already believes that it is the world government. Look at it's recent attempt to legalise all drugs.

[Graeme No.3]

golf charlie @ 6.06pm

"Malthusians would prefer death rates to exceed birth rates provided they are not included in their own planning".

There's the answer. Include them in the "reduced head count of expendable" or if you, unlike them, baulk at mass murder, abolish their jobs.

[golf charlie]

Graeme No 3, an alternative answer is to ask those that support Malthusian theory, to volunteer themselves for liquidation. This is likely to see a drop in support for global warming's presumed perils. Strong supporters of Malthusian theory, would never find out whether they had ever been right about anything. Everybody else would reap the benefits though.

[John F. Hultquist]

Denis Ables at 8:09 PM
"… two weather satellites …"
There are 2 groups – RSS & UAH – using data from multiple satellites. The results differ a little because different satellites are used and the data processed in different ways.

[Jamspid]

Ask fifteen hundred unemployed Redcar Steel Workers about Carbon Taxes and ending poverty