UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol Rebuts Warmist Bob Ward’s ‘fantastical claims’
Mr Ward’s fantastical claims
http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2014/04/mr-wards-fantastical-claims.html
Due to popular demand, here is a response to Mr Ward’s claims, dated 2 April 2014. Mr Ward’s words are in italics. Erroneous claims are in red.On the Journal of Economic PerspectivesOf the 14 data listed in Table 1 and plotted in Figure 1 of the paper, at least four were wrong.There were two errors in Table 1 and one error in Figure 1. Mr Ward has known the correct number of errors since October 2013.there was only one study that showed significant positive effects from global warmingTwo estimates show net positive effects. Mr Ward was aware of this in October 2013. I am not aware of any claim to significance, which is a problematic concept in forecasting.he refused to give any undertaking to write to the journal to correct themAn erratum and update is scheduled to appear in the Spring 2014 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives.On the Journal of Economic Dynamics and Controlmade four errors in his representation of the 17 data used in Figure 1 and Table 1There was one error. Mr Ward has known this since October 2013.it was still only the 2002 paper in Professor Tol’s dataset that showed any significant net benefitsSee above.On IPCC WG2 AR5A section had been inserted on ‘Aggregate impacts’In fact, that section was moved from Chapter 19 to Chapter 10. As far as I am aware, Mr Ward did not raise this concern with the IPCC. He was informed no later than 2 April 2014 that the text was moved rather than added.three errorsMr Ward had spotted only one error. He has known since October 2014 that the other two alleged errors are, in fact, correct.only 1 of the 20 data2 out of 21still contains at least three erroneous data pointsMr Ward misrepresents IPCC procedures. The IPCC cannot revise history and changed the Final Government Review draft. The typographical error found by Mr Ward will be corrected in the published report, that will appear in due time.On errataGiven that Professor Tol seemed determined not to correct his papersTwo errata are in the process of being published. Both errata show that the errors had a minimal and statistically insignificant effect on the quantitative results, and no effect on the qualitative insights.The third journal decided against an erratum. Instead, the editor invited Mr Ward to submit a formal comment. If that passes peer-review, I will …
Washington Times Features Morano v. Gore on ‘Inconvenient Truth’ Sequel: Morano called Gore a ‘highly partisan figure’ who has ‘lived a lifestyle not conducive to low carbon ideals & he helped doom the global warming movement’s chance of success’
…It’s All Over: EU Commission Backs Down On Carbon Tax On Aviation
It’s All Over: EU Commission Backs Down On Carbon Tax On Aviation
http://www.thegwpf.org/its-all-over-eu-commission-backs-down-on-carbon-tax-on-aviation/
The European Commission urged the bloc’s Parliament to exempt international flights from paying for their carbon emissions yesterday (2 April), retreating from its own proposal on the eve of a binding vote amid pressure from national governments.
In a late night debate in the Brussels parliamentary chamber, Europe’s climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard told members to back a weakened compromise rather than her own agency’s proposal to regulate the portion of international flights over EU territory.
“Without doubt the Commission would of course have preferred and fought for a higher level of ambition…. it would’ve been better for Europe’s self-respect and reputation, and even more important, for the climate. But we are where we are,” said Hedegaard.
In 2012, the European Union started charging all airlines for emissions for the full duration of their flights into and out of the bloc via its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). But, after complaints from major economies including the United States and China, confined application to domestic EU flights only for one year, in order to give the United Nations time to craft a global alternative.
Last September, nearly 190 nations at UN aviation body ICAO agreed to design a worldwide scheme to limit aviation emissions by 2016, but rejected letting Europe apply its own plans in the meantime.
Just weeks after the ICAO meeting, the European Commission insisted Europe was within its rights to regulate within its own airspace, and proposed extending the regulation to also cover the portion of international flights over EU territory.
EU member states came out against the plan, fearing it will re-ignite tensions with major trading partners, and hamper progress toward the global aviation emissions deal.
The EU Parliament has been more divided, with some lawmakers urging Europe not to bow to international pressure and to help hold the ICAO to its pledge to ready the global agreement.
The centre-right European People’s Party, the biggest grouping in the European Parliament, with nearly a third of its 766 seats, wants to keep international flights exempt, while the second-placed Socialists and third-ranked Liberals were split ahead of the vote.
Full story
Sent by gReader Pro…