“Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020″

Question: If warming really threatens to destroy human civilization, why was Jones hoping for warming?

And if the world was still warming in 2009, why did Jones refer to “lack of warming”?

Email 4195

Tim, Chris, I hope you’re not right about the lack of warming lasting till about 2020.
…
I seem to be getting an email a week from skeptics saying where’s the warming gone. I know the warming is on the decadal scale, but it would be nice to wear their smug grins away.

Maybe he needs a backup plan:

MacCracken suggests that Phil Jones start working on a “backup” in case Jones’ prediction of warming is wrong

ClimateGate FOIA grepper! – if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong

In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.

We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared.

Best, Mike MacCracken [Note that Obama's chief science advisor, John Holdren, is copied on this email]

“If energy conservation were to be the sole goal of energy policy, and efficacy were to be the sole technical consideration, then why CFLs? If we really want to save energy, we would advocate high-pressure sodium lamps—those large bulbs that produce bright orangish light in many streetlights. Their efficacy is more than double what CFLs can offer. Of course this would not be tolerated by the public. This choice shows that we are willing to advocate bad lighting—but not horrible lighting.”

The abstract follows:

Researchers debate whether environmental investments reduce the firm’s value or can actually improve financial performance. We provide some first evidence on shareholder wealth effects of voluntary environmental initiatives. Companies announcing membership in Climate Leaders and Ceres – two voluntary environmental programs related to climate change – experience significantly negative abnormal stock returns. The price decline is smaller in carbon-intensive industries, where regulatory actions are more likely, and for high book-to-market firms, suggesting that green expenditures crowd out growth-related investments. We also document insignificant announcement returns for portfolios of industry rivals. Overall, environmental investments appear to conflict with shareholder value-maximization. This has far reaching implications since the U.S. government relies on voluntary initiatives to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

The paper is from KAREN FISHER-VANDEN and KARIN S. THORBURN of Dartmouth College. I have not read the paper, but if it is true that green spending crowds out growth related investments, on net, then perhaps people need to pay more attention to the idea that a little wealthier is a lot safer.