Though I would suppose that “Random” and I may have somewhat different viewpoints on some of the matters concerned, I’d very much share his opinion with respect to using the term “scientific consensus.” It may, as “Random” suggests, be primarily a type of political consensus. But, even if it weren’t, it’s still a micharacterization to call it “scientific.”
At best, it’s a consensus opinion of people who
work in science-related fields and addresses not at all (actually seems deliberately calculated to
“beg the question” as to) the qualifications of those included in the consensus and, as well, the “scientific” methodology(ies) employed to yield such opinion. A simpler, less confusing, and more clearly neutral expression might have well been employed, “consensus opinion of climate scientists (or whatever they might’ve been).

No need to “pile on” to diminish Murphy’s arguments–he does a good job all by himself.

No it is not. It is the political consensus. Not only does th IPCC have few scientists working in their own fields, but the political report always comes out first and they have a rule that the scientific report must align with the political report. To suggest that there is a scientific consensus is wrong, but to suggest that the IPCC report has anything to do with serious science is just laughable.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see Richard try to “prove” that Paul Ehrlich actually won his bet with Julian Simon.

Every time I read this Murphy fellow, I almost suspect Tim of stirring up controversy by playing both ends, a la Twain–surely nobody’s as stupid as the guy seems. But I know I’m wrong about that–there are plenty just that stupid. And the fact that such beliefs are more characteristic of those on the “left” (not the political–the normal curve of IQ distribution is what I’ve got in mind) helps not at all, since there are so many on the advantaged side of that curve who, for one reason or another, are intent on leading the stupid further down their stupid path. It’s enough to make one pessimistic about the future., regardless of how the climate might
develop.

“The reality is that in a finite world we cannot sustain real growth of this scale – there is not enough resource to do so”

The world is finite but human ability is not.

Just as we discovered Oil after Malthus, so too could we discover new forms of energy that will increase the global stock of resources. We could discover new foods and new ways of growing foods again just as we have done down through the generations.

Resources are not fixed, they are determined by human application. If we want to grow our resources we should encourage people to use their talents with things like low taxes and freer trade. This is why A1FI will make us 11 times better off, whereas the ‘protect our producers and make everyone equal’ approach (B2) leaves us 5 fold better off.

Besides, although the SRES is 9 years old, can anyone point to a peer reviewed study contradicting it as being too optimistic to any great degree?

Are we going to have to back to taking bets like Julian Simon with Ehrlich, Holdren et al in the 80′s. If so, my money’s on GWP being twice 2000′s level by 2030.

“Anyone who claims a 9 year old report – now superseded”

It’s customery when making these statements to provide a link. Especially as the IPCC is the UN’s chosen, and accepted by most Governments around the world, forum for ensuring a united approach to CC.

Unless you are refering to the fact that since 2000 CO2 has continued to increase yet temperatures stubbornly refuse to follow?

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/07/do-arguments-have-to-be-symmetric.html

No apologies…”

There’s a shocker…

No apologies

Anyone who claims a 9 year old report – now superseded – is scientific consensus – and which ignores peak oil, is quite clearly clutching at straws. You can do that – it’s your right

But it’s my right – and you suggest I have rights – to say otherwise

If you don’t like the term fantasy – how about just accepting that it’s evidence of an attachment to wishful thinking in the face of the evidence?

I am entirely happy with the idea of a global world – as you are. I also accept people live and work and are governed locally. I imagine you have no desire for a global government.

I am also entirely convinced there is man made global warming.

I am entirely convinced we will see peak oil soon.

I am entirely convinced we face major issues such as water shortage – not really anticipated even nine years ago

And I am entirely convinced an economist can model 11 times growth – and that this proves nothing.

The reality is that in a finite world we cannot sustain real growth of this scale – there is not enough resource to do so

I therefore maintain my position – you are wrong

In which case adherence to that opposition is fantasy in my opinion

And you are welcome to say the same of mine – and you usually do somewhat more robustly

Richard

Tim adds: Richard, you seem to have missed the major point here. This is the IPCC. This is the scientific consensus. This is the set of economic models upon which everything, AR4, the Stern Review, the EU EUTS, Obama’s cap and trade proposals, the building of windmills, the Copenhagen Meeting coming up….all of them, everything, are based upon this one set of economic scenarios.

There are no other economic models within climate change. There are no other such inputs into hte process. This is it. This is what the entire towering edifice is built upon.

You cannot reject this without rejecting all of the rest of it. Without these economic models there are no predictions of climate change at all!

Notwithstanding you have used the s-word, in principle I agree, but isn’t it also the case that we already have taxes on emissions, i.e. primarily fuel duty, that roughly cover the cost of road maintenance + the magic $80 per ton?