A screwdriver often comes in handy. But not as a soup ingredient. Black pepper is essential in any cooking. But don’t try repairing your bike with it.

Calculation of GDP is, not only among laymen like myself, but also among skilled economists, regarded as a tricky tool indeed. Still, it’ very useful, also for the general public, in trying to grasp all sorts of economic facts and development.

Since the mid 90′s, scientists, but predominantly politicians, have been playing with the concept of a Green GDP, expanding the data to include environmental costs. This process is now gaining speed, e.g., in the World Bank.

This is a questionable path. Even as, naturally, growth and hardship can be linked to environmental factors, it’s not the same thing as to say that environmental factors should be regarded as exclusive data in their own right. Further, changing the calculation methods is difficult for several reasons. You need an international consensus, otherwise comparisons will be meaningless. GDP figures are used to calculate changes over time. If you mess with it, you will have to – somehow – compensate against historical figures.

And including “climate change”, as is being more and more talked about? Careful here. This is an ongoing debate and predictions are all but clear. And how do you intend to translate the virtual lack of global warming over the past decade into economic figures?

GDP, with all it’s shortcomings, is at least useful for showing the development of the GDP/Tax pressure ratio, over time, and in comparison with other countries. Adding new, rather shaky variables seems like little more than inventing another tool for the politicians to polish their statistics.

Just think again, before you pour those extra spices in the soup, try to fix the brakes on your bike. Or try to fix international, economic statistics.

Interesting to notice how the big-whigs get nervous, as soon as someone else on the top dares to question the holy Global Warming religion.

Recent weeks have seen uproar in the European Parliament as British, conservative members openly have defied the “green” promises from London. Recently, Commissioner Janusz Lewandowsky caused even more havoc, when questioning the entire ideology and scientific basis behind the scare. Euractiv reports and provides links, with the rather unexpected help from Greenpeace, who provided a translation.

Lewandowsky is not anybody. In fact, he was one of the founding fathers of the free Poland after the final liberation in 1989, and as such a hard core free marketeer. He is currently commissioner in charge of the ongoing, and rather chaotic budget process. This has not gone to well so far, but his decision to stick out his neck on an issue that was basically considered untouchable not so long ago, is a sure sign that times have been changing.

Notice the wording “chocked colleagues”.

This will be fun.

Next Target for Dr Killjoy

Sometimes I feel that most forms of climate hysteria are, if not religious, at least more a matter of some personal gratification found in strange life styles.

This morning I read another interview in www.svd.se with a girl who ventured to move in together with her family in a form of carbon neutral or “climate smart” house and adjust her life for a lengthy period to cut carbon dioxide emissions (or “foot prints”, as it’s sometimes called), and be environmentally friendly in general. I presume there are a lot of strange experiments like this going on around the world, but even trying to apply a friendly, alarmist perspective, I often find it hard to grasp the logic, or the real intentions.

She complains that the toughest sacrifice has been not being able to fly. Well at least that excludes all the people who have to fly for personal or professional reasons. But more importantly, what’s the point in not taking that trip to London? The flight will leave anyhow, with or without you. Or is it a matter of boycotting all airline companies out of business? Guess it must be. Also know that would have devastating effects on both economy and safety.

Abstaining from steak, is another popular climate gimmick. But it’s while the cow is walking around that it emmits those so called climate gases. Once it’s on your plate, it’s only food. Or is the idea that all cattle should be exterminated? Once again, quite devastating effects, especially for the other environmental pet project, biodiversity.

The most recent target is snacks and candy. This is not about the climate anymore, it’s an experiment – Stanley Milgram style - to see how far ordinary decent people are willing to go in self sacrifice and pure stupidity if you scare them with enough phony science.

Literature

Ernst Georg Beck: 180 Years of Accurate CO2-Gas-Analysis of Air by Chemical Methods (Short Version), in: Energy & Environment Volume 18 No. 2/2007

After the APEC meeting in Singapore there is nearly nobody left on earth who believes that world leaders will sooner or later find a compromise on massive CO2 reductions. Not everybody regrets this. There are scientists casting serious doubts on the IPCC’s assertion that humankind is facing unprecedented levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The IPCC’s warning is based on continuous photoaccoustic CO2 measurements on Hawaiian volcano Mauna Loa since 1958. Since then the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen one year after another.  Al Gore ‘s famous PowerPoint presentation uses the Mauna Loa curve to demonstrate the need for sharp reductions in human made CO2 emissions throuh emissions trading.

But what happened before 1958? It is known that there were sufficiently accurate measures of the CO2 concentration in the air with the help of chemical methods since the middle of the nineteenth century. In 2007 German biology teacher Ernst Georg Beck in his paper „180 Years accurate CO2-Gasanalysis of Air by Chemical Methods“ in: ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT (Volume 18, No. 2/2007) showed that around 1940 CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were higher than today. But sceptics wondered if these local measurements were representative for the global trend.

In a recently published paper Ernst Georg Beck and his colleague Francis Massen from Luxemburg show that the CO2 background level can be accurately deduced from local near ground measurements with the help of a simple formula (taking wind speed into account). If Beck’s and Massen’s conclusions are confirmed, it would be difficult to assert that the preindustrial baseline of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is 280 ppm and that its rise to actually 388 ppm has caused global warming.