The $6 quadrillion cost of the climate scam

Christopher Monckton on the economics of fighting ‘global warming’

The capture of the once-pure environmental movement by the hard left is far from cheap for the rest of us. I have just told the annual planetary-emergencies conference of the World Federation of Scientists that on the basis of the lunatic anti-CO2 policies now fashionable among scientifically illiterate governments, it would cost $6 quadrillion to prevent the 6 degrees Fahrenheit of predicted “global warming” that will not happen anyway.

Professor Antonino Zichichi, one of the world’s top six particle physicists (he discovered a form of anti-matter 40 years before the multi-billion-dollar Large Hadron Collider did), is the most famous Italian scientist since his hero Galileo. He founded the Federation half a century ago and, at the age of 83, is its president to this day.

CLIMATE CHANGE CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON

Nino looks like a proper scientist. Imagine giving his friend Albert Einstein an electric shock, and that is what his hair looks like. He is fitter than me and attributes his good health to walking an hour every day, not drinking alcohol and not eating lunch (that’s for wimps). He lives in a medieval stone house in the unspoiled, monastic village of Erice, Sicily, perched high on a 2,500-foot crag overlooking the blue Mediterranean.

He is an angry man. Angry because he, like me, was brought up in the Classical tradition, which insists that the duty of every “seeker after truth” (Al-Haytham’s beautiful phrase for the scientist) is to be logical and rational. He founded the Federation at the height of the Cold War to remind scientists of their moral responsibility to use their craft for good, not for ill, and of their intellectual obligation to adhere rigorously to the scientific method.

Nino is furious at the politicization of climate science. Science these days is a monopsony. There is only one paying customer: the State. Scientists increasingly produce the results their political paymasters want rather than seeking after truth.

Nowhere is the buying of desired results by governments clearer than in Nick Stern’s now-discredited report of 2006 on climate economics. The U.N.’s absurd climate panel had already at least tripled the true (and harmless) rate of warming to be expected from our adding CO2 to the air. Stern, to please his socialist paymasters, tripled it again without the slightest justification. Then he divided by 10 the true cost of making global warming go away and multiplied by 10 the true cost of not acting to Save The Planet (memo to Old Nick: The planet was triumphantly saved 2,000 years ago and doesn’t need saving again).

Tony Blair, the shifty socialist prime minister of the day, was so delighted with this nonsense that he gave Stern a peerage and installed him as head of the Grantham Institute, a lavishly funded propaganda institution promoting fear of climatic Armageddon and hatred of the West.

Using Old Nick’s report as a pretext, Blair (with the near-unanimous support of all parties, including Call-Me-Dave Cameron’s Not-The-Conservative-Party) introduced the biggest tax increase in human history. With only three votes against, the Climate Change and National Economic Hara-Kiri Act was passed on the very night when the first October snow for 74 years was falling outside in Parliament Square.

With the help of the Italian Government, which takes an intelligent interest in science, Nino Zichichi bought three redundant monasteries in Erice and turned them into a center of scientific excellence, where the world’s finest minds come throughout the year to attend courses and seminars and to exchange ideas.

The crème da la crème come to the annual seminars on planetary emergencies every August. This year, at my suggestion, the Federation’s climate panel organized a discussion on climate economics. None of the distinguished speakers had a kind word for Old Nick and his silly report. In particular, he was criticized for his wild exaggeration of the supposed threat. After 15 years without any global warming at all, his conclusion that there is a 10 percent chance the world will end this century because of global warming now looks sad and dated.

President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic gave the keynote lecture. At the U.N.’s Save-The-Planet climate conference in 2007, he had been the only leader to speak out publicly against the climate scam. A dozen other world leaders told him privately that they agreed with him but did not dare say anything publicly.

President Klaus demanded a hard-headed rational approach to climate policy-making, as did Lord Lawson, Margaret Thatcher’s former finance minister. Professor Ross McKitrick, who had exposed the U.N.’s fraudulent attempt to abolish the medieval warm period in 2001, said climate models and the policies based on them should be adjusted to take account of the failure of temperature to rise as predicted.

Using Australia’s new carbon dioxide tax as a case study, I demonstrated that it is 48 times more expensive to try to make global warming go away than to let it happen and enjoy the sunshine.

Nino, having heard the arguments, announced a new permanent panel to monitor developments in climate economics. Now hear this, if you are thinking of writing a bogus report like Old Nick’s to please your government paymasters: We are watching.

President Klaus’ lectio magistralis to the Federation is available here. My paper is here.

They demonize capitalism and freedom … and it’s working! Read Brian Sussman’s latest book, “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America”

Source: http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/the-6-quadrillion-cost-of-the-climate-scam/

13 comments

  1. Viscount Monckton’s purported “$6 quadrillion” cost is phsically absurd, as it amounts to $850,000 per capita globally, while the per capita share of all the CO2 in the air is only some 300 tonnes, which would, pro rata, make over $2,800 a tonne avaiable for carbon capture and sequestration .

    This is an order of magnitude more than the most pessimistic engineering estimates, and wrong by a factor of 40 if the goal is to turn the CO2 clock back by a century.

  2. If anyone is pushing propaganda it is you Stephen, All your rantings sound like they are coming direct from a Greenpeace hymn sheet, If you really believe that wind & solar are the way forward then I pity your blinkered faith, Any clown can see that no wind = no power & no sun = exactly the same outcome, If you want to live a life without heating or electricity then you go right on ahead but dont ram your messages of unproven doom down peoples throats as you are making yourself sound neurotic, But I will give you credit for one thing though, you have given me a right good laugh!.

  3. Wow – lots of right-wing cultists on this site, Kool-Aid drinkers who accept the brainwashing of FoxNews without question. Actually, global warming is not the problem, it is only one of the many bad outcomes of the problem. The problem is burning dirty, finite, toxic fossil fuels. A few of the other bad outcomes are 40,000+ premature deaths per year from air pollution, de-alkalinization of the oceans, huge increases in asthma, pollution of aquifers and groundwater from fracking, etc. You folks don’t get it, do you? We are really talking about the extinction of most life on earth from burning these poisons. Yet, you fall right in line with the oil company propaganda and think there is no alternative. Solar and wind power are clean and infinite (at least for several billion years) and the technology is available today to power and heat our homes and factories, if they weren’t being suppressed by the dirty fossil fuel industry which is concerned because you can’t meter the sun or the wind and charge ridiculous amounts for them. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid guys – see you in the graveyard!

    • The problem, Stephen, is that it is you that doesn’t get it. If all the billions (even trillions) committed by governments for “Green” technology is intended to clean up the atmosphere and not, as they would have us believe, to replace the existing power sources because of AGW, then there are numerous profitable alternatives for which private industry not taxpayers would be willing to bear the cost. Furthermore, the world’s population recently passed the 6 billion mark, projected to be 9 billion in another twenty years, I don’t think the human race is in any danger of extinction except possibly from overpopulation Meanwhile, you are free to install your own solar panels and windmills, as many are now doing,

    • Stephen, check deaths from cold against deaths from heat. Winter cold periods tends to kill more elderly than summer heat. The oceans are largely in a dynamic equilibrium between chemica reactions which promote the dissolution of carbonate and those which promote it’s precipitation . The chemical reactions between water, carbon dioxide, carbonate , bicarbonate, calcium ions, magnesium ions and effects of temperature on dissolution of gases are complicated , but generally ocens are well buffered. In fact in the tropics , there are often whitings when sea water becomes super saturated with carbonate producing precipitation of particles.

      Solar requires extensive construction of cables from where electricity is produced ( sunny climes) to where it is needed. Solar power only works during daylight. If solar power was located in the Sahara, night comes at 6- 7pm , so would be no use for generating electricity in the evening. One aspect of electricity production in the UK is the need for power station to increase power production before ,during and after popular television programmes. Cold spells in winter often coincide with low wind speeds. Consequently, wind power cannot provide increased power if there is sudden cold snap which coincides with low wind speed. Wind power only generates electricity for about 30 % of the time and the best places are often distant from where the elctricity is needed. Repairing damaged wind powered stations either on or offshore in windy conditions is potentially very dangerous. I would not like to repair a wind turbine when it is being blown apart by strong winds or be within the radius of debris fall being buffeted by powerful waves .

      Some of the offshore wind farms are suffering from poor grouting of foundations and scouring problems. I have yet to see figures for how long solar and wind powered stations will last and the total costs.

      Solar and wind power will increase the cost of electricity and poor pensioners are the most likely to suffer, even die, if they cannot afford to heat their homes during a cold spell in winter. Solar and wind power needs subsidies which increases the cost of elctricity and therefore increases the costs of industries which need energy. Consequently, low to medium value manufacturing may move overseas which means less blue collar jobs but more public sector white collar jobs. Most green party voters are middle class with little or no industrial experience . Green politics further puts stress on blue collar jobs in low to medium technology industries by increasing costs.

  4. Your site should be renamed to,Hang the Bankers, the Politicians & last but not least the Greens.

  5. After 15 years without any global warming at all, Professor Ross McKitrick, who had exposed the U.N.’s fraudulent attempt to abolish the medieval warm period in 2001, said climate models and the policies based on them should be adjusted to take account of the failure of temperature to rise as predicted.
    Jct: I’ve got the temperature graph since 2000 and it doesn’t keep going up but down and up with no appreciable increase any more. I’ve got a $100 bet with the Green Party candidate in Toronto Danforth who said it was still warming! Har har har.

  6. Thank god there are still some people in the world willing to do some science rather than just be an employee of the state or large company that profits from the knowledge whilst in the meantime produce rubbish as fodder for their mates in the press to dress up, demonise and spoon feed to the masses.

    There must be two types of scientist:
    1. Those that like/don’t mind deceiving the public so they can put their own kids through college, pay their mortgages and keep their lazy lifestyles intact whilst the rest of society can go hang and cope the best it can.
    That is not a true scientist, they could have easily been a lawyer or a banker. The end result is still a monstrous mess.

    2. Those that do not/will not allow themselves to be bribed and went into the discipline with the primary intention of breaking new ground, leaving the planet and the people on it better off.
    These people usually suffer greatly for telling the truth. They get hounded out by corporate hounds and end up leaving the field of science for the storytellers.

    AGW, it’s science Jim, but not how we know it

    Thankyou for your efforts Professor Zichichi.

  7. Howard T. Lewis III

    I am honest to God NOT surprised that their ‘noble queen’ picked Al ‘D’ Gore to be her ‘Grand Wizard’ of ‘Global Warming’ . The poor lad got a ‘D’ in his only science class in college. The class was called ‘natural Science’. I imagine it had something to do with comparing pieces of popcorn hot out of the pot and comparing the rates of melting of ice cubes in tequila, rum, and scotch whiskey. Gore would have avoided Tennessee bourbon because that would have seemed pretentious to him rather than the insistence that science and data accumulation be dropped in favor of ‘Chicken Little’ technology. The extorting of money for the queen, her last duty on earth, also needed tending to (debt=10xGDP).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>