Garnaut’s Updates – even more political

The reported public comments by Garnaut also indicate that he has attempted to bolster his argument by making incorrect claims. For instance, that sea level increases are “tracking right at the top of range of possibilities” (they are well down the range and at rates over recent years would pose no substantive risk of inundations). He also claims there would be more frequent “extreme” cyclones – though not necessarily more frequent cyclones! But this is reportedly based on an article in Nature (a warmist journal) claiming more intensive cyclonic activity in the North Atlantic! By contrast, our Bureau of Meteorology web site says that “a growing number of studies indicate a consistent signal of fewer tropical cyclones globally in a warmer climate”. There is no evidence to support the view that climate change arising from increased temperatures is to blame for the recent flooding, or for Cyclone Yasi, and the argument that higher sea surface temperatures could have contributed to the strength and size of Yasi has no factual basis - the tropical ocean surface temperature during January 2011 was slightly cooler than average.

In his 2008 Review Garnaut presented economic modelling showing that with or without mitigation “Australian living standards are likely to grow strongly through the 21st century”, with mitigatory action improving GDP in 2100 by only about 5 per cent above what it would otherwise have been. By contrast, Richard Tol (an author for the IPCC, a shared winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and classified as among the top 5% economists in the world) has put the cost of mitigatory action at about 40 times greater than the benefits. There is no discussion in this first Update of such critical analyses.

The Update does puts emphasis on benefits that were described in the 2008 Review as immeasurable but of “great importance” (environmental amenity, longevity, insurance against risks, etc). This Update claims that new information now available will require a re-assessment of the measurable benefits and costs in a future Update. This new information, which smacks of a clutching at straws and assumes the science is correct, are stated as including increased scientific knowledge suggesting more serious adverse effects from climate change, lack of progress towards a comprehensive global agreement (which adds to future mitigation costs), and improved low-emission technologies.

Conclusions

The conclusions to this first Update make claims that are capable of being interpreted either way. Thus “it is clear from preliminary analysis that there have been significant scientific, policy and analytical developments since 2008” and that “The international framework changed fundamentally at Copenhagen and Cancun”. But these developments are arguably not supportive of the case that Garnaut puts. Nor can it justifiably be claimed that “The climate science has developed, mostly in ways that heighten rather than ease concerns”, or that “There have also been considerable developments in the domestic policy discussion”, which strengthen that case.

It is probably true, however, that “the costs of some low-emissions technologies appear to have been falling faster than anticipated.” This might suggest though that there is less need for early emission reduction action.

Equally, the conclusion that “a late start globally on mitigation has raised anticipated costs of both climate change and its mitigation” takes no account of the increased uncertainties about the science and the likelihood of global action.

All up, much as expected but seriously disappointing from someone who might have been expected to present a more professional analysis.