Tim Worstall

The IPCC Report

Well, they’ve finally agreed on it. But it is still worth noting that this is not the report itself.

The 21-page "policymakers summary" of a full report to be published
later this year charts the impact of temperature rise over the past 30
years and calculates the implications of the rise of about 3C by the
end of this century forecast by another IPCC panel in January.

This is a horribly stage managed process. As with the earlier report what has been agreed is the dumbed down version for the politicians and the press. The full versions of both will contain all the science and they’ll be out later in the year. You don’t have to be all that much of a cynic to think that there might be a design behind this. Get the headlines fixed in people’s minds before allowing anyone to see the supporting data, eh?

Still, a couple of useful statements:

Prof Parry said actions to adapt to climate change, such as sea
defences and new forms of agriculture, should take priority over
efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, which would take years to have any
impact. He said: "In the near term, adaptation is vital. The sooner we
get on with that the better."

Indeed, we should be making the most efficient uses of the resources at our disposal. This of course means breaking down any barriers to the trade of said resources. Yes, free trade again. We need it to save the planet so to speak.

Africa will be hardest hit. By 2020, up to 250 million people are likely to be exposed to water shortages.

In some countries, food production could fall by half, the report said.

African farming suffers from not having had a green revolution in the usual crops as yet.  The new strains of wheat, rice, potatoes, corn and so on in the other parts of the world make agriculture there more robust, better able to deal with changing external conditions. Unfortunately, no one has yet done the same with cassava and other peasant raised crops in Africa. Given the speed with which all of this is said to be happening, we really rather need to get on with that as well, don’t you think? We’ve not time for the traditional decades long breeding processes, so, looks like its gotta be GM.

Which leads us to an interesting dilemma for those who want to take the report seriously. Even halting all CO2 emissions right now would not stop the warming in the next few decades. That warming, the droughts, are, we are told, are going to come anyway. So we’re going to have to use GM to ameliorate the effects. Which means that people like Greenpeace are going to be in a difficult situation.

GM or millions dying?

In

7 responses

  1. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    “GM or millions dying?”
    Are you ever even slightly perturbed by the sheer moral shabbiness of the stuff you write, Tim?
    I mean, a few days ago you were telling us that climate change would be nothing to worry about for Africans for decades, now you’re saying that the danger is huge and immediate, just because it lets you score a cheap point off the Lefties about GM crops.
    Do you even care which version is true? Or has ‘millions dying’ just become the favoured punch-line to your self-satisfied little digs at the other side?
    Tim adds: Sure I care which version is true. Sure I care about which would be the best thing to do about it too. Which is it going to be then? It’s the same people telling us that it’s all going to be an immediate disaster who won’t let us use the most appropriate tool to deal with it.
    I’ll agree that there’s a mote in my eye over the cheap shot as long as you’ll agree there’s a beam in others’ over this issue.

    Reply
  2. juandos Avatar
    juandos

    I’ve got to ask, what collection of socialist agencies allowed has libtards like this Jim person the ability to roam free when its obvious he’s not smart enough to be out on his own?
    I mean how abysmally stupid does one have to be to be sucked in by the myth of human induced global warming?

    Reply
  3. Jeff Avatar
    Jeff

    As with the earlier report what has been agreed is the dumbed down version for the politicians and the press. The full versions of both will contain all the science and they’ll be out later in the year.
    Also worth noting that on page 4 of
    “Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work” it states that “changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the working group of the panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the summary for policy-makers or the overview chapter”
    Or, to put it another way, once the politicians have rewritten the “summary” to grab the headlines, the main body of the report, ie the real science, must be rewritten so that it matches. A novel take on peer-review.

    Reply
  4. Peter Risdon Avatar
    Peter Risdon

    It would plainly be redundant to ask Jim whether he has any capacity for any form of self-examination. His sense of moral rectitude apparently makes it redundant even to read the posts with which he chooses to take issue.
    Tim said: “Given the speed with which all of this is said to be happening… Which leads us to an interesting dilemma for those who want to take the report seriously“, and proceeded to point out the importance of turning to engineered crops according to the timescales of those who at present seem most hostile to GM technology.
    In other words, in his haste to indulge in preening, sanctimonious self-regard, Jim has failed even to understand the point being made.

    Reply
  5. Chris Avatar
    Chris

    How do you plan to reconcile the need to use our resources the most in Africa, where the problems will be greatest, with your doctrine of free trade?
    Tim adds: sorry, you what? Trade moves assents and resources to their highest value usage. That’s what it’s for. Thus we will most efficiently use the resources availableif we have free trade.

    Reply
  6. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    “Sure I care which version is true.”
    So which version is true?
    “I’ll agree that there’s a mote in my eye over the cheap shot as long as you’ll agree there’s a beam in others’ over this issue.”
    Jesus. So it’s alright being wrong as long as someone else is wronger. And no, I’m not going to apologise for whoever it is you’re thinking of, because I’m not reading their blog. FWIW, I think blanket opposition to GM crops is wrong, just as wrong as mindless GM-boosterism which ignores or downplays or suggests we shouldn’t even investigate the potential environmental, social or economic costs.
    Somebody who was serious about boosting African agricultural productivity would talk about the existing technologies which can make a huge difference but just need proper funding and distribution (nitrogen-fixing trees, better water harvesting, etc) and investment in research into all aspects of African agriculture, and would acknowledge that aid-funded projects like Jeff Sachs’ Millennium Villages Project have had early success in significantly increasing yields. Somebody who was serious about boosting African agricultural productivity would not ignore all this and pretend that GM crops were a sliver bullet.
    Tim adds: someone who was serious about African agricultural productivity would acknowledge that property rights are at the root of the problem. Africa needs more industrial rather than peasant agriculture and it’s not going to get that when those who invest cannot be sure of keeping their investment. You know, like all land in Ethiopia belongs to the State.

    Reply
  7. Jim Avatar
    Jim

    Ooh, it’s another silver bullet that will fix everything! Funny how you’ve got it sort of the wrong way around though. Firstly, it was redistribution away from the huge land-owners to the small-holding peasants that increased productivity in Korea and Japan.
    More importantly, if it was all about private ownership then the millions of African farmers who own their own land wouldn’t be poor, would they? You are aware that Ethiopia is rather atypical, aren’t you?
    There are some fairly simple flaws in the ‘privatise land and everyone gets rich’ idea. Dividing everything up into fenced-off privately held plots isn’t going to be very helpful to pastoral farmers who need to move around to access shared resources such as water, especially when those resources are so variable. Shutting off poor people’s access to these kind of resources wouldn’t be a particularly bright idea. There’s plenty of literature out there pointing out that the simplistic model of exclusive private ownership doesn’t particularly suit conditions or cultures in large swathes of Africa. The important thing is to improve land rights rather than obsessing about private ownership.
    But that wouldn’t make for such a good slogan, would it?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading