|
Newsletter (July 31, 2009)
In this issue
Featured- The Climate Industry: $79 Billion So Far--Trillions to Come
- Peer-Reviewed Study: Man Not Responsible for Global Warming
- Green Job Myths
- Climate and Cost: Clearing the Airwaves
Debate- The Green Nazi Hell and America’s Future?
- If We Were Serious About Global Warming
Science- Selective Research and Ignored Facts
- Nuclear's Model T
Economics- Time for a New Approach to Climate Change
- Why Cap-and-Trade's Success Cutting SO2 Doesn't Predict Success Cutting CO2
Meet the Critics: J. Scott Armstrong & Fred Goldberg
Briefly Noted
Featuredby Joanne Nova
Author, The Skeptics Handbook; Author, JoanneNova.com; Partner, Science Speak
Science & Public Policy Institute, July 21, 2009
The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon‐trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 ‐ $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon‐Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five‐thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a self‐fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?
Can science survive the vice‐like grip of politics and finance? . . .
. . . The scientists funded by governments don’t need to be dishonest for science to become distorted. They just need to do their jobs. If we ask 100 people to look for lizards in the jungle, would anyone be surprised if no one sees the elephant on the plain? Few people are paid or rewarded for auditing the IPCC and associated organizations. Where is the Department of Solar Influence or the Institute of Natural Climate Change? . . .
. . . Ideas that question the role of carbon in the climate are attacked with a fine‐tooth comb by large teams of paid researchers. If real flaws are found they are announced loudly and repeatedly, and if there are imagined or irrelevant flaws, these too are announced and sometimes with even more fanfare. But ideas that support the role of carbon in the climate are subject to a very different analysis. Those on Team‐AGW check to see if they have underestimated the impact of carbon, or made an error so obvious it would embarrass “the Team.” Since there are few paid supporters of natural causes, or people who benefit from defending non‐carbon impacts, there is no one with an a priori motive to dig deep for non‐obvious mistakes. So the pro‐AGW ideas may only be scrutinized briefly, and by unpaid retirees, bloggers running on donations, or government scientists working in other fields—like geologists, who have reason to be skeptical, but who are not necessarily trained in, say, atmospheric physics. . . .
. . . The combination of no financial reward, plus guaranteed hostile scrutiny, and threats of losing employment would be enough to discourage many from entering the contentious side of the field or speaking their mind if they question the “faith.” . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Marc Morano
Director, Climate Depot
July 23, 2009
Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.
"The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de Freitas.
"We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.” . . .
. . . Bob Carter, one of four scientists who has recently questioned the justification for the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme, says that this paper has significant consequences for public climate policy.
"The close relationship between ENSO and global temperature, as described in the paper, leaves little room for any warming driven by human carbon dioxide emissions. The available data indicate that future global temperatures will continue to change primarily in response to ENSO cycling, volcanic activity and solar changes.”
“Our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation, and that, irrespective of the severity of the cuts proposed, ETS [Emissions Trading Scheme] will exert no measurable effect on future climate.”
.jpg)
This figure from the McLean et al (2009) research shows that mean monthly global temperature (MSU GTTA) corresponds in general terms with the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) of seven months earlier. The SOI is a rough indicator of general atmospheric circulation and thus global climate change. The possible influence of the Rabaul volcanic eruption is shown.
Read the rest.
Related items:
The new study: Influence of the Southern Oscillation on Tropospheric Temperature
by J. D. McLean (Applied Science Consultants, Croydon, Victoria, Australia), C. R. de Feitas (School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand), and R. M. Carter (Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia)
Journal of Geophysical Research, July 23, 2009
Ignoring Science
Investor's Business Daily, July 24, 2009Back to top by Andrew P. Morriss (University of Illinois College of Law; PERC - Property and Environment Research Center; George Mason University - Mercatus Center), William T. Bogart (York College of Pennsylvania), Andrew Dorchak (Case Western Reserve University Law Library), and Roger E. Meiners (University of Texas at Arlington)
Social Science Research Network, March 12, 2009
A rapidly growing literature promises that a massive program of government mandates, subsidies, and forced technological interventions will reward the nation with an economy brimming with green jobs. Not only will these jobs improve the environment, but they will be high paying, interesting, and provide collective rights. This literature is built on mythologies about economics, forecasting, and technology.
Myth: Everyone understands what a green job is.
Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists.
Myth: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.
Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.
Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.
Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.
Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.
Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference - such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests - will generate stagnation.
Myth: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.
Reality: History shows that nations cannot produce everything their citizens need or desire. People and firms have talents that allow specialization that make goods and services ever more efficient and lower-cost, thereby enriching society.
Myth: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.
Reality: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.
Myth: Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.
Reality: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today's demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality.
In this Article, we survey the green jobs literature, analyze its assumptions, and show how the special interest groups promoting the idea of green jobs have embedded dubious assumptions and techniques within their analyses. Before undertaking efforts to restructure and possibly impoverish our society, careful analysis and informed public debate about these assumptions and prescriptions are necessary.
Download the full article or read a shortened version.Back to top by Dean Nelson
Public Policy Liaison, Wellington Boone Ministries
Mississippi Center for Public Policy and Eagle Forum of Alabama, July 1, 2009
[Click here to see the Cornwall Alliance's talking points on Cap & Trade.]
You may have heard the recent radio spot by the American Values Network regarding the Waxman Markey climate change bill in the House of Representatives. They wanted you to call your congressman in support of the bill. They said this bill would help “working families and the poor.” They insisted that “a great assembly of church leaders” backed the bill. And they claimed that power companies were against it because of greed and a disregard for the poor.
I have my doubts about all three claims.
First, how would this bill help working families and the poor? . . . This will especially hurt the poor, for whom the higher cost of goods and services (like groceries, gas, and home-energy use) consume a much higher percentage of their disposable income. . . .
. . . What about the “great assembly of church leaders”? . . . Last fall, a reputable Baptist polling firm found that only 32 percent of pastors in evangelical denominations “believe global warming is real and manmade.” The rest—more than two thirds—doubt it.
If there’s a “great assembly” of church leaders, it is represented by the thousands of pastors, evangelical leaders, scientists, and laypeople who have joined the WeGetIt.org Campaign. The WeGetIt.org Declaration says that we want to care for the environment and the poor, but we don’t buy the media hype about global warming.
So, what about those greedy companies? It turns out that energy companies support the Waxman-Markey Climate bill. The official summary of the bill states: “The global-warming provisions in the discussion draft are modeled closely on the recommendations of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a coalition of electrical utilities, oil companies, chemical companies, automobile manufacturers, other manufacturers and energy companies, and environmental organizations.” Contrary to what the American Values Network says, many big businesses support the legislation.
Why would energy companies and manufacturers lobby in favor of a cap-and-trade bill if, as the radio ad claims, it would hurt their profits? They wouldn’t. They are betting that this bill will substantially increase their profits—at our expense.
Myron Ebell, director of the Energy and Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. told Congress, “The primary attraction of cap and trade appears not to be reducing emissions, but rather that promise of colossal transfers of wealth from consumers to big-business special interests and to government.” . . .
. . . Cap and trade should be called what it is: a tax. It’s a huge tax, and a regressive tax that will hit the poor the hardest by raising the price of basic necessities, in order to fill the bank accounts of big business and finance our growing federal debt. Big business, big government, and big bureaucracy win; the poor lose.
Read the rest.
Related thoughts:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. and
The proposal of any new law or regulation which comes from [businessmen], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, I.x.c.27 (Part II), and I.xi.p.10 (conclusion of the chapter)
Back to top Debateby Mark Musser
Accuracy in Media, July 2, 2009
. . . There was in fact a convergence between early German environmentalism and Nazism that is stunning with regard to how the Nazis promoted nationalistic ecological ideas, yet also found themselves unable to match in practice the green rhetoric they were espousing for a variety of reasons.
Thus while it may be true that from the perspective of modern environmental historians, the Nazis were not nearly as green as they said they were, there was one aspect of their nationalistic environmental campaign that was accomplished with brutal efficiency--the elimination of the Jews--which in the eyes of the Nazis was the first necessary step, if not the most important.
While Schopenhauer could not have anticipated the green sacrificial offering of the Jews in the gas chambers of places like Dachau where organic farms were planted nearby to feed Himmler's SS troops, the Nazis never asked him "how" to expel the Jews from Europe. Only the turning tide of the war prevented the Nazis from finishing the job that Schopenhauer prophetically announced 100 years earlier. While Schopenhauer would have undoubtedly been aghast at how literally the Nazis fulfilled such anti-Semitic ambitions, Hitler called Schopenhauer a genius.
Here begins the lesson of a nationalistic racism and environmentalism that got hotwired together into an explosive political ecology that eventually dug a biological-ecological hole as deep as Auschwitz. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top GreenWatchAmerica, June, 2009
If we were serious about global warming, we would find a way to accurately measure the temperature in the earth's troposphere, which is supposed to be warming at a rate greater than that of the earth's surface. We haven't.
If we were serious about global warming, we would care that of the 1,221 temperature measuring stations in the United States, only 11% meet ideal specifications, and are free from factors that interfere with taking accurate temperature readings. We don't.
If we were serious about global warming, our legislators would pass a climate bill that actually did something about the climate. They won't.
If we were serious about global warming, the years of overwhelming propaganda from politicians and the media alike would have resulted in a society that cares more about the health of the environment than they do about their portable music devices. It hasn't.
If we were serious about global warming, our eco-friendly cars would actually be...you know...eco-friendly. They aren't.
If we were serious about global warming, we'd have a series of televised debates on the issue, outlining the facts and the science, then leave it to the American people to decide if it really is an issue, and what to do about it. Oh yeah... We don't care about accurately measuring the temperature. We don't care that our "solutions" do nothing to combat the problem. We don't care enough to sacrifice even our most inessential modern comforts. And no one is really willing to convince us that we should.Back to top Scienceby Timothy F. Ball
Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg; Chairman, Natural Resources Stewardship Project; Senior Fellow, Frontier Centre for Public Policy
Canada Free Press, July 27, 2009
Marston Bates said, Research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind. But what happens if a research alley is avoided or ignored? Often the answer is in what is ignored, not what is presented. It’s an unacceptable practice in science and only indicates the political nature of the climate change research and debate.
Why is the Most Important Greenhouse Gas Ignored? We should change the name of the planet from Earth to Water. It covers much more of the surface than land, makes it unique from the other planets, and without it life as we know it would not exist. Search for water is a constant theme in space exploration.
Despite all this what we actually need is more knowledge about water and its functions on Earth, especially with regard to weather and climate. All the emphasis is on temperature, but what happens to precipitation is far more important for plants and agriculture. Precipitation is mentioned in claims of increased droughts with global warming, but it’s a scare tactic and illogical. Warmer temperatures mean more moisture in the air with more precipitation potential, not less. The illogic eludes notice because of lack of understanding of the role of water in atmospheric processes.
Ignorance and Misunderstanding is Everywhere. Generally the public is unaware water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gases by volume and CO2 is less than 4%, yet water vapor is virtually ignored. Here is a web site devoted to greenhouse gases (GHG) but water vapor, by far the most abundant and important one is listed under “other.” . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Craig F. Smith
Professor, Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey; Fellow, American Nuclear Society and American Association for the Advancement of Science
Mechanical Engineering Magazine, July, 2009
. . . While new conventional nuclear plants trend toward larger size, there has also been continuing and growing interest in small and medium size plants. Nuclear generating stations that can operate at that smaller scale could enable broader use of this source of clean, abundant energy in a rapidly growing world economy. Such plants could be installed in locations that would not be able to accept the large quantity of electricity generated by a gigawatt-scale reactor, and there is some indication that, properly designed, a small plant could be cost competitive with the larger ones currently planned.
Along with my colleagues, I have worked on developing the class of reactors known as the Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor (STAR), and the Small Secure Transportable Autonomous Reactor (SSTAR) in particular, and I believe this concept could play an important role in a global renaissance in nuclear energy. Reactors of this kind could be built in a central location and shipped to locations around the world, even developing nations that do not have the capability to build nuclear plants themselves. Indeed, small nuclear power plants could be a key technology for curbing greenhouse gas emissions in emerging economies. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Economicsby Pete Geddes
Executive Vice President, Foundation for Research on Economics & the Environment
July 22, 2009
. . . The least bad alternative to spur an energy transition is a carbon tax. Higher energy prices will induce people to behave as members of Greenpeace ideally do. Since a carbon tax will hit low-income folks hardest, it should be offset by cuts in other areas. Reducing payroll taxes and revoking automobile fuel efficiency standards are good candidates.
A carbon tax is far superior to the current alternative; the 1,200-page American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 known as Waxman-Markey after its congressional sponsors. Since the bill will do little to cut CO2, it is universally derided by all but the special interests expecting to gain from it. Waxman-Markey reinforces Princeton Ph.D. George Will’s observation that: “The world is divided between those who do and do not understand that activist, interventionist, regulating, subsidizing government is generally a servant of the strong and entrenched against the weak and aspiring.” . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Jesse Jenkins
Associate Director, 2009 Breakthrough Generation, The Breakthrough Institute
May 13, 2009
. . . As you can see, the global climate challenge is obviously not as simple as the SO2 challenge, or indeed, any pollution reduction challenge we've faced to date. It won't be as easy as adding scrubbers or catalytic converters to smokestacks and tailpipes or burning low-sulfur coal and gasoline with new additives instead of lead. Those transitions we're relatively easy, required no major innovation, and allowed business-as-usual to continue in the electricity and transportation sectors in all meaningful ways (essentially same energy sources, same technologies, same consumption practices).
In contrast, what we're talking about today is fundamentally different: a full-scale transformation of our entire global energy system, consumption habits and more (agriculture, international deforestation, etc.). It's both an order of magnitude larger and more complex a challenge.
In fact, there is truly no parallel for this kind of transition in the history of pollution regulation. There may be no real parallel at all, but if there is, it will look more like major technological transformations in agriculture, telecommunications, or the transitions between major primary energy sources (wood/dung to coal to oil etc.) or transportation methods. None of those transformations were driven by taxes or regulations on incumbent techs. They were driven by innovation and the emergence of better/cheaper technologies, as well as major public investments in technology R&D, deployment, infrastructure and education. For more on historic examples of this kind of challenge, see our recent report Case Studies in American Innovation: A New Look at Government Involvement in Technological Development.
It's long past time we put this comparison between acid rain and global climate change to rest.
Read the rest.Back to top Meet the CriticsHave you ever been at a loss for words when challenged by the alarmist's claim of scientific "consensus," or that dissenting scientists are unqualified? Not only does consensus prove nothing, but the very idea of "consensus" among scientists on catastrophic manmade climate change is simply unfounded. A 2008 Senate Environment and Public Works Minority Report documents dissension around the world:More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent
Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Two notable critics are:
J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D.
Forecasting pioneer Scott Armstrong is a founder of the Journal of Forecasting, the International Journal of Forecasting, and the International Symposium on Forecasting, is a teacher at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, and is an author or editor of numerous books, papers, and websites. "Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder," insisted Armstrong, explaining that "of 89 principles [of forecasting], the IPCC violated 72." A few of Armstrong's many works are Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making, Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit, and (at the 2008 and 2009 ICCC's) Strengths and Weaknesses of Climate Models and A Forecaster's View of Climate Change: Methodology Also Counts.
Fred Goldberg, Ph.D.
Climate analyst and polar history expert Fred Goldberg was affiliated with the Royal Institute of Technology for over thirty years and is a researcher and frequent lecturer on climate change. After much study, Goldberg has concluded that there is not a good positive correlation between human CO2 emissions and annual changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration. Several pieces by Goldberg are Rate of Increasing Concentrations of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Controlled by Natural Temperature Variations, The Global Warming Scam, and (at the 2008 and 2009 ICCC's) The Natural Source History of Atmospheric CO2 Fluctuations and Do the Planets and the Sun Control Our Climate and the CO2 in the Atmosphere?.Back to top Briefly NotedWho Are the Real Conspiracy Theorists?
Don't Treat CO2 as a Pollutant
A Closer Look at the IPCC
Apocalypse Sun?
Meet the Man Who Has Exposed the Great Climate Change Con Trick
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., National Spokesman
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
Information in this newsletter is for scholarly and educational use only and may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders.
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
