New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | November 10, 2004

Ronald Bailey weighs the evidence for and against global warming.

Comments

|11.10.04 @ 2:27PM|#

I have only the vaguest understanding of this. I've been under the impression that the controversy isn't that there has been warming trends, but rather that the cause for the trend may or may not be man made. Is that incorrect?

I think the environmnetalists have been shooting themselves in the foot on this issue. People don't understand it, and the science is murky. If they're worried about the air then they'd be better off talking to peoples immediate needs. There are still too many days of the year here in Denver where they advise us to avoid exercising outside and now inide. That to me is more of a real issue.

|11.10.04 @ 2:35PM|#

A preemptive summary of the rest of the comments on this thread:

The evidence is clear that global warming is caused by humans and is destroying the world. Actually it's caused naturally and might not be that bad. No, wait, it's caused by humans but it's not all that bad. No, it's been proven that it's not happening at all. And your mom is ugly.

Also, we should switch to solar energy, except that wind energy is better, but nuclear is clearly the best choice, except that there's no reason to stop using coal, you dumbass.

|11.10.04 @ 2:57PM|#

except that there's no reason to stop using coal, you dumbass.

mmmm, coal makes my tuna taste like burning

|11.10.04 @ 3:06PM|#

Dan,

A neater nutshell than that for the argument has never been devised.

|11.10.04 @ 3:17PM|#

Aw, Dan, you're stealing my thunder with the pre-emptive posting! ;->

|11.10.04 @ 3:17PM|#

Best

Dan

Post

Ever.

:-)

|11.10.04 @ 3:25PM|#

I think the more interesting question is, what is the rational policy decision based on this conflicting data?

|11.10.04 @ 3:33PM|#

Thinking locally, not globally, we still see mean annual air temperature increases in the Pacific Northwest of about 1.5 F over the past century. We've observed the retreat of glaciers in the Cascades and Rockies. Based on these trends, I continue to warn water resource managers to plan for a hotter, drier future.

I just don't tell them why it's happening, cuz frankly, I dunno.

gaius marius|11.10.04 @ 3:39PM|#

what is the rational policy decision based on this conflicting data?

that would be "none", mr rikurzhen.

I've been under the impression that the controversy isn't that there has been warming trends, but rather that the cause for the trend may or may not be man made. Is that incorrect?

yes, mr deron, that is ostensibly incorrect. there is a great deal of important debate within the scientific community as to whether or not warming is even being observed on a global scale.

|11.10.04 @ 3:47PM|#

Dan, you are hereby served with an order to cease and desist from violating thoreau's copyright on pre-emptive posting. And don't even think about waiting for the copyright to lapse, as Sen. Hatch has just extended it to last 500 years!

|11.10.04 @ 3:53PM|#

As an underfunded scientist I also would like to know how to politicize my research.

|11.10.04 @ 4:40PM|#

pigwiggle

You need need to find an imminent crisis that needs instant solution at great cost and of course, connections. Perhaps you will find the solution to the dihydrogen monoxide menace threatening us all.

If the following is true (I have a handful of NaCl) it's an interesting story of unintended consequences. Although I've noted some nuclear power promotion going on lately and the status of British coal mining unions is about as low as it can go.

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

|11.10.04 @ 6:22PM|#

gaius marius:

How can that be the (economically) rational response if it ignores the probability of climate change (0

|11.10.04 @ 6:32PM|#

... non zero) and the costs of such change.

For example, the probability of an asteroid impact is small but non-zero. The potential costs are large enough to make it rational to spend a small amount on asteroid impact prevention each year.

|11.10.04 @ 8:06PM|#

Just to inject one serious note into this discussion... While a lot of people like to present the issue as if it were as simple as "Is global warming real? Yes or no?", there are actually at least four questions that need to be answered:

1. 
   
2. Is global climate change a reality?
   
3. Is it anthropogenic?
   
4. Can we do anything about it?
   
5. Should we do anything about it?
   

A lot of people stop at #1 and immediately say, "See, we need to ratify the Kyoto treaty right away!" etc., but the others deserve serious study too.

|11.10.04 @ 8:09PM|#

JD is exactly right.

|11.10.04 @ 8:57PM|#

How can that be the (economically) rational response if it ignores the probability of climate change.

Because we don't know what the economic effects of climate change are or how to avoid them.

|11.10.04 @ 9:51PM|#

JD,

Agreed:

1) Is global climate change a reality?

2) Is it anthropogenic?

3) Can we do anything about it?

4)Should we do anything about it?

And how about

5) If the answer to all of the above is yes, then what solutions are possible that don't create worse problems than they potentially solve

|11.10.04 @ 11:02PM|#

Because we don't know what the economic effects of climate change are or how to avoid them.

To the first part, I'm sure that economists can make projections; I'm sure that they have.

To the second part, questions 2-5 (above) would decide that.

|11.10.04 @ 11:30PM|#

To the first part, I'm sure that economists can make projections; I'm sure that they have.

It doesn't matter if they've made projections, it matters if they've made accurate ones. They have not, and can not. The countless variables involved introduce too much chaos.

To the second part, questions 2-5 (above) would decide that.

Yes, but the answers to 2-5 are all "we don't know".

|11.10.04 @ 11:43PM|#

Dan, I find that terribly hard to believe. The answer isn't "we don't know" but rather, there is a set of possible answers, with non-zero probabilities for each.

For example, if sea levels rise x feet, an event with probability ~p, then ~y billion dollars in property will be lost. Repeat for all the various answers.

People make decisions based on incomplete data all the time; I don't see why this is any different.

RDale|11.11.04 @ 12:59AM|#

Although people make decisions based on incomplete data from time to time, it is still generally preferred to do so only when it is the only option remaining. I would argue (as per JD's post) that we aren't at that point yet, and resultingly, we still have some time to evaluate the situation before jumping on some solution that might actually make things worse, rather than better.

Additionally, I would have far more respect for the positions of the 'we must do something NOW or we'll all die' contingent if they weren't opposed to most of the more viable methods of ameliorating CO2 emissions (such as nuclear power).

I'm all in favor of working to minimize unnecessary human impact on the climate. I'm not in favor of jumping in with a poorly considered solution just because it feels good to do something.

|11.11.04 @ 2:39AM|#

My point is that the risk calculation will probably suggest some kind of *minor* reduction in CO2 production now in case climate change is real. How much will the alternative cost if we have to make *drastic* cuts in the future?

Truly, my point is that people should be looking for the rational measured response to hedge against all the possibilites. Cries for drastic change are unwarranted, but it seems that so is the claim that *clearly* no action is the best move right now.

|11.11.04 @ 3:26AM|#

This is the kind of analysis I have in mind:

Doing a little now to mitigate long-term climate change would cost much less than doing nothing and making an adjustment in the future, say scientists whose paper appears in the Oct. 15 issue of the journal Science. Implementing a carbon tax of five cents per gallon of gasoline and gradually increasing the tax over the next 30 years is the optimal solution, the researchers report. "You can think of the tax as a low-cost insurance policy that protects against climate change," said Michael Schlesinger, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a co-author of the paper. "The policy premiums could be used to develop alternative energy technologies."

Even if these guys got the numbers wrong, this is the kind of calculation we should be doing.

fyodor|11.11.04 @ 11:12AM|#

RDale,

Who gives a shit if the "other side" is stupid? The sentiment in your post sounds a little like ye olde cutting off your nose to spite your face. We should be seeking the truth and the solutions, not using a certain group's bad answers to rationalize not coming up with any ourselves.

If the answers to #'s 1 and 2 are yes, I think the best course of action is a greenhouse gas tax. Preferably to be coupled with reductions in other taxes. And I think the more that market minded people back such an idea, the less likely we are to face the specter of arbitrarily set absolute limits, which would do a lot more harm economically and would be ethically unfair as well.

|11.11.04 @ 11:43AM|#

http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/000145.html

|11.11.04 @ 3:35PM|#

fyodor,

I don't really think I was categorizing the other side as stupid, merely that many of the most vocal of them seem to be opposed to anything that isn't an extreme solution (usually typified by unrealistic economic or lifestyle changes, and I consider the kyoto accord to be a member of that set).

You may also have noticed that I am in favor of reasoned discourse on the subject. I would probably argue against a tax, as I suspect its utility would be less than its costs, but I'm okay with having it on the table as a discussion point.