Reason.com

Print|Email

New at Reason

February 2, 2007

Ronald Bailey asks what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is really trying to say.

← I Want My ATM-Style Voting | Main | Nice Surge You Got There. Shame… →

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.

|2.2.07 @ 12:29PM|

Seems to me like they're trying to say "This is a problem, and it's looking less and less likely that it's a purely theoretical problem, but nor are we on the verge of pluging into the ocean next week." You know, a balanced, rational, analytically scientific statement. Made by scientists.

Count me as officially moving myself from "totally unconcerned about global warming relative to the travesties against freedom that preventing it would cause" to "relatively unconcerned." But if this is a legitimate problem, I'm (finally) willing to concede a little bit to gain a lot (i.e. let reasonable policy-makers go after low hanging fruit.) Then we can determine how much further (if any) we need to go.

It'll never actually happen that way...

|2.2.07 @ 12:39PM|

Ron,

I saw this reported on GMA this morning, and they were touting the horrific effects that Global Warming could bring. Am I safe in assuming that they were quoting from the worst case scenario, rather than the expected?

|2.2.07 @ 12:44PM|

Over here in the Gulf of Arabia, I have access to a variety of news channels: BBC World, Al Jazeera International, France 24, Russia Today, Deutsche Welle and Nile News.

All off them are rife with doom-saying about the new IPCC report. BBC is the worst, they just had a report about how Sydney will be uninhabitable in 50 years, but they're all going on about "the sacrifices we will all have to make", and so on.

Oddly, Al Jazeera is perhaps the least hyperbolic. Except for China's English-language CCTV9, who aren't mentioning it at all :-)

|2.2.07 @ 12:44PM|

But LD you don't think this report would be used by the European community to command and control all of mankind's energy, manufactoring and food production. After all this is a scientific paper written by European scientists who just happen to be paid by those that would do the commanding and controlling.

Then again it might be time to move to the mountains.

|2.2.07 @ 12:47PM|

By 2100 sea level is expected to rise between 28 to 43 centimeters (11 to 16 inches).

Somebody needs to check and make sure that Gilligan has not been moving the Professor's measuring stick again.

Mike Laursen|2.2.07 @ 12:57PM|

Then again it might be time to move to the mountains.

A couple of feet above sea level should do.

grylliade|2.2.07 @ 1:02PM|

Ron,

In your next-to-last paragraph there is some confusion about units. Sometimes you're talking about centimeters, sometimes millimeters. I'm guessing that every time the unit should be millimeters, otherwise sea level changes in the last half of the 20th century would have been an order of magnitude greater than in the first half, and would have risen a total of about 850 mm during the 20th century.

|2.2.07 @ 1:04PM|

Sometimes you're talking about centimeters, sometimes millimeters.

Centimeters... the sad evidence that the metric system lacks an inch.

|2.2.07 @ 1:08PM|

Shocked, Shocked I am that Ron declined to mention this critical story from today:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

Why, I wonder, would he not think this worth bringing up? Hmmm. I wonder.

|2.2.07 @ 1:15PM|

BBC is the worst, they just had a report about how Sydney will be uninhabitable in 50 years,...

The "Sydney will be uninhabitable" story was run completely separately from the IPCC report story. In fact it was last week.

That story was however typical of the sensationalist hype that comes out every so often. And to the extent that it was accurate most of Sydney's problem's exist independently of Climate change.

See here is the problem. The IPCC scientists have a hard enough time explaining what is in their report without have to straighten out the misconceptions created by numerous executive summaries and hyped media reports.

For example, some of them have had to go to great lengths to explain that this year's mild winter in the NE USA and Western Europe, the drought in Australia and the 2004 and 2005 N Atlantic hurricane seasons are part of completely normal cycles that are not at all out of line with historical weather patterns. All have these stories have been reported but never with same breathless urgency and hype that usually accompanies network TV stories.

They might have been catastrophic*, but they are not part of the phenomenon of Climate Change discussed in the IPCC report no matter how much bureaucrats and politicians want them to be.

*Well except maybe the mild winter (again except for ski resort operators). I hear some people are positively beaming over their lower than normal heating bills.

|2.2.07 @ 1:18PM|

Now, Shocked!, if we pretend that being paid to research an issue is the equivalent of being paid to argue one side of that issue, we can convince ourselves that AEI is doing the same thing as the IPCC.

Judges and lawyers both discuss the law; ergo, the statements made by the lawyer of one party in a lawsuit are just as credible a statement of the law and facts as the decision.

|2.2.07 @ 1:24PM|

grylliade; Thanks for the catch. I've asked my editors to fix it. I blame my typos on having to wake up at 3:30 am to read the IPCC report. :-)

|2.2.07 @ 1:26PM|

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Polarbear|2.2.07 @ 1:45PM|

Ron,

Do you know how this sealevel calculation is made ?

Will all of the water that melts from the polar caps go directly into raising the sea level or will some portion of that water go into additional atmospheric water content that will increase the snow pack in cold areas and the rainfall, stored in aquifers and foliage, in other areas ?

|2.2.07 @ 1:46PM|

Scientists and economists backing the AGW theory have alraedy been paid billions of your tax dollars to shore up thier scare mongering ascenatios, whats wrong with private funds supporting the rational view?

|2.2.07 @ 1:54PM|

Likewise! Scientists and economists backing the traditional "Theory" of "Gravity" have already been paid BILLIONS! [sic] of your tax dollars to shore up THEIR scare mongering ascenatios. What's wrong with private funds supporting the rational, Intelligent Falling, view?

|2.2.07 @ 2:03PM|

Sealevel and temperature calculations aren't going to reflect the real costs of climate change. The real costs will be in destabilized weather patterns, resulting in (as we saw recently) some years of extra-severe storms and others of unusual calm, very cold or very warm winters, snow unusually late, and other stuff that messes with agriculture.

Galileo|2.2.07 @ 2:04PM|

Gravity is science because it can be demonstrated with a repeatable experiment.

Global warming can't

|2.2.07 @ 2:23PM|

But LD you don't think this report would be used by the European community to command and control all of mankind's energy, manufactoring and food production.

Yes, I think they'll try to do AT LEAST that much power consolidation. Nor do I think that we (or any other country) have the "reasonable" policy makers I mentioned above. I'm simply saying that on the scale of things, I've moved. If people who think "Day After Tomorrow" is a documentary are at point 50,000, I've moved from 0 to say, 7. Still don't agree with most and still will fight pretty much any solution the EU puts forward. Simply saying that IF something unobtrusive were proposed, I'm no longer completely opposed on principle.

|2.2.07 @ 2:32PM|

LD
I would agree with you that I have moved to about a 7 on your scale. But only European socialists could take their recent good weather and turn it into a catastrophe.

|2.2.07 @ 2:45PM|

I'll believe in Global Warming when the Reason Pillow girl has to remove the red bikini because she is too hot.

|2.2.07 @ 2:56PM|

I heard a woman from the National Oceanic and somethingorotherifforget the acronym Administration on NPR last night. She was very reasonable sounding and was a co author of the report itself.

The guy on marketplace kept trying to get her to condemn American policy, and she said flatly "You know, that is really a political decision that involves costs and benefits. The role of the scientist is to provide objective information about what is happening." Amen, sista.

The critical question is, to what extent will growth damaging policies help the 100 year scenario? Okay, so human activity over the last 100 years contributed significantly to the effect. That is good data. What happens if we stop all CO2 right now? What is the range of harms if we act or not?

It bothers me when pundits on either side of this treat the 'did we do it?' question as the salient one, when really we should be focusing on the 'can we make any kind of cost effective dent in this thing'? If a remedy is harmful in the sense that a seven dollar minimum wage is harmful, what the heck? Even as a libertarian, that is an annoyance that offsets real commons problems.

However, if they tell us we have to raise the wage by $100 to have a marginal impact, our area of focus should shift to 'how do we live with a warmer earth?'

Polarbear|2.2.07 @ 3:00PM|

Gravity is science because it can be demonstrated with a repeatable experiment.

True, but I prefer that physicists refrain, for now, from making black holes in their laboratories just to prove their theories through experimentation.

|2.2.07 @ 3:04PM|

Sealevel and temperature calculations aren't going to reflect the real costs of climate change. The real costs will be in destabilized weather patterns, resulting in (as we saw recently) some years of extra-severe storms and others of unusual calm, very cold or very warm winters, snow unusually late, and other stuff that messes with agriculture.

And CO2 emissions and temperature reductions aren't going to reflect the real costs of government action to address global warming. The real costs will be in lowered economic growth rates -- especially in the less developed parts of the world -- inhibiting the exponential increase in wealth and prosperity that we would otherwise expect.

Not only will this make later generations poorer than otherwise: It will make them less able to deal with the consequences of global warming or whatever other threat they find more important than global warming at that time.

|2.2.07 @ 3:45PM|

I heard a woman from the National Oceanic and somethingorotherifforget the acronym Administration on NPR last night. She was very reasonable sounding and was a co author of the report itself.

Jason, I heard that too.

I found it another example of what I observed on this issue a long time ago.

And that is the difference between what is actually in the IPCC reports and what reporters, bureaucrats and politicians tell us is in the reports.

ed|2.2.07 @ 3:47PM|

I always wanted to live near the beach.

|2.2.07 @ 3:47PM|

I heard a woman from the National Oceanic and somethingorotherifforget the acronym Administration on NPR last night.

If that's the same story I heard, then the scientist(s?) was very reasonable. The basic story was that now scientists were much more sure that Global Warming was happening (& caused largely by man), and that the expected scenario was similar to what it had previously been. However, the best and worst case scenarios were appearing less likely.

|2.2.07 @ 4:01PM|

"The real costs will be in lowered economic growth rates -- especially in the less developed parts of the world -- inhibiting the exponential increase in wealth and prosperity that we would otherwise expect."

That's a mighty big assumption. If the wealthy nations put up the money to change over from fossil fuels to renewables, that would 1. reduce the cost of fossil fuels for developing nations and 2. allow developing nations to have access to the advanced energy technologies and more efficienty transportation/building/manufacturing technologies that we would develop, without thte cost of having to develop them themselves.

Both of these would immensely aid the developing world in making the jump to modern economies.

grylliade|2.2.07 @ 4:12PM|

Gravity is science because it can be demonstrated with a repeatable experiment.



That's simply untrue. If you want to argue against global warming, at least come up with some kind of cogent argument.

The real costs will be in destabilized weather patterns, resulting in (as we saw recently) some years of extra-severe storms and others of unusual calm, very cold or very warm winters, snow unusually late, and other stuff that messes with agriculture.



You mean, global warming will result in unpredictable weather? Wow, that's new! Always before climate was staid and predictable!

Seriously, is there any evidence that a 2°C is going to radically alter the severity of swings in climate/weather? We're not going to be reaching temperatures never before seen in Earth's history (not even recent history); we're not going to be going through a record rapid rate of temperature change. Temperature fluctuations of this magnitude and rate seem to be nothing rare in the history of Earth. Maybe it's something to be aware of, even to mitigate the effects of, but it's nothing to get too scared of.

|2.2.07 @ 4:32PM|

Hey, I'd fully support slapping a gigantic tax on petroleum and coal, in return for zeroing out FICA taxes, thus, in one fell swoop, internalizing, at least in part, the cost of greenhouse gas emissions, and getting rid of the fiction that the bonds placed in the Social Security Trust Fund are the equivalent of the bonds purchased by Aunt Millie or the Chinese. Somehow, I don't think those most alarmed by global warming would agree with this proposal.

burnbabyburn|2.2.07 @ 4:40PM|

Hell, I'll be long dead before GW affects me . So I'm going out right now and buy the biggest god damn gas guzzling SUV I can find! Screw the children.

bill|2.2.07 @ 4:47PM|

Global warming, so what? Lets take the worst case scenario. GW kills off 99% of the human race. That still leaves 60 million people! The human race won't go extinct. On the contrary, such a reduction in population would turn the Earth into a paradise. The important thing is to make sure we don't fall into a dark age. We should be spending money building repositories of knowledge so the survivors won't have to rebuild from scratch. Global Warming, I say bring it on!

|2.2.07 @ 5:23PM|

That's a mighty big assumption. If the wealthy nations put up the money to change over from fossil fuels to renewables, that would 1. reduce the cost of fossil fuels for developing nations and 2. allow developing nations to have access to the advanced energy technologies and more efficienty transportation/building/manufacturing technologies that we would develop, without thte cost of having to develop them themselves.

joe, I would normally agree with everything you said... except that the same people who support this type of thinking (maybe even you), oppose the most proven and effective green energy source: Nuclear Power.

If those greens would stop fighting nuclear power, and allow a nucelear power industry to exist without restrictions or regulations designed to make it cost-ineffective and poluting (such as rules against recycling fuels), then we could find a lot of common ground and start working on solving the problem.

|2.2.07 @ 5:25PM|

"Seriously, is there any evidence that a 2°C is going to radically alter the severity of swings in climate/weather?"

All of the climate models show this.

Which stands to reason, if you understand how complex and chaotic systems work. The more energy you put in, the wider the swings.

It's not that we're going to set all-time record temperatures, but that there will be more weather events that are extreme, be thay droughts, storms, or, yes, temperature swings.

Will Allen,

"Somehow, I don't think those most alarmed by global warming would agree with this proposal." That's one of Al Gore's proposals.

|2.2.07 @ 5:26PM|

Rex,

As a matter of fact, many strong environmentalists have urged us to revisit nuclear power.

"designed to make it cost-ineffective and poluting"

We're not going to find any common ground if you're going to carry on like that. "Designed?"

Polarbear|2.2.07 @ 5:27PM|

If the wealthy nations put up the money to change over from fossil fuels to renewables,

This will have the same effect as opening the refrigerator door to cool the room off.

|2.2.07 @ 5:36PM|

The claim that all true sciences are experimental sciences is retarded. Geology? Cosmology? Evolutionary biology? Yes, these sciences were established in a controlled laboratory setting. Jesus.

And though I make no claims to expertise, I suspect the law of universal gravitation received its empirical confirmation from the observations of Brahe and Kepler, rather than from measurements from some experimental apparatus. Even the optics experiments were more a heuristic than anything, I think. Or maybe you meant gravity as in 'stuff falls'. If so, you're a fucking idiot.

|2.2.07 @ 5:38PM|

somethings not mentioned so far.

This IPCC report has to be unaminously agreed upon by hundreds of scientists, AND edited and agreed upon by scores of beaurocrats from 154 nations...unanimously. In a word, this report can be described as:

Conservative.

As such there are going to be a number of insuficiently agreed upon 'details' not included in the report and it's estimates. One of those details is hard to model aspects of melting ice sheets particularly Greenland. No one knows just what it WILL bring within our lifetimes, nor when anything suddenly catastrophic may happen; but the threatened catastrophic sea level rise from such can't be ignored just because it isn't included in this report.

What does even one foot of sea level rise mean? An article I read recently suggested that for every one foot rise in sea level, a coast line loses (on average) 100 feet of inland ground. Additionally it doesn't take much to swamp a city's water and sewage system, rendereing a city uninhabitable. Levees can only do so much. Such a disruption, even for a short while is devestating, see New Orleans for similar results. New levees to protect to our coastal regions and deltas would need to be built, replacing aging and inadequate systems. This is risky without knowing just how much the seas will rise and when.

AdditionallyThe loss of accurate coastal and sea maps will make reliable and safe navigation for the shipping our global economy is so dependent on...costly. (don;'t be so certain we will have satellite navigation avialble either...it's getting crowded with junk up there.)

|2.2.07 @ 5:40PM|

One thing I can't seem to get from the "global warming is real, caused by human activity, and will be horrible" crowd is exactly how much CO2 we are talking about. That is, if we're emitting too much CO2, then we should know (a) how much we're actually emitting, (b) how much existing atomspheric CO2 is already out there, and (c) what ratio of a/b is "too high". Curiously, I can't get an answer to that question, and they're visibly uncomfortable while considering their answer. Usually they end up saying that it's irrelevant, we must Do SomethingTM, and that I'm evil or misguided for even asking the question.

|2.2.07 @ 5:44PM|

If the wealthy nations put up the money to change over from fossil fuels to renewables, that would 1. reduce the cost of fossil fuels for developing nations

This is the case only if (a) the "renewables" are cheaper than the fossil fuels, which is quite unlikely, or (b) the developing nations aren't charged as high a carbon emission fee, which would have significant impact on efficient industrial production worldwide.

and 2. allow developing nations to have access to the advanced energy technologies and more efficienty transportation/building/manufacturing technologies that we would develop, without thte cost of having to develop them themselves.

This is true, again provided the new solutions are cheaper than the old. But it's a bit of a broken window fallacy here, isn't it. The efforts to improve energy technologies that are artifically stimulated are not available to address other concerns and markets that may be more pressing.

Polarbear|2.2.07 @ 5:48PM|

"AdditionallyThe loss of accurate coastal and sea maps will make reliable and safe navigation for the shipping our global economy is so dependent on...costly.

Someone will have to fix the maps.

Tim Lambert|2.2.07 @ 5:58PM|

Ron Bailey makes a dreadful mess of his report on the IPCC AR4. He repeatedly confuses climate sensitivity (the eventual warming from doubling CO2) with the projection for 2100.

AR4 does not project warming of 2-4.5. That's the range for climate sensitivity. In fact, it projects warming in the range 1.1-6.4 degrees C.

Nor is the projected sea level rise 28-43cm. The report actually projects a range from 18-59cm. But these exclude "future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow", so larger rises are possible.

|2.2.07 @ 6:17PM|

Bob Smith,
the answers you seek maybe in the executive summary itself:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

biologist|2.2.07 @ 6:23PM|

Polarbear | February 2, 2007, 5:48pm | #

"AdditionallyThe loss of accurate coastal and sea maps will make reliable and safe navigation for the shipping our global economy is so dependent on...costly.

Someone will have to fix the maps.

and probably every port on the planet will have to have shipping lanes dredged to increase their length

|2.2.07 @ 6:28PM|

and probably every port on the planet will have to have shipping lanes dredged to increase their length

The presumption is that the water is getting deeper. Why would a port need to dredge the lanes to their docks any more than they do now?

|2.2.07 @ 6:28PM|

Joe, if Gore is actually proposing that an oil and coal tax be instituted, while getting rid of FICA taxes, then I wish he was running for President.

|2.2.07 @ 6:38PM|

MikeP,
I think what PolarBear is saying is that as higher waters eat away at the shores, all that sediment gets redistributed...potentially in places inconvenient for shipping.

|2.2.07 @ 6:44PM|

Will Allen,
in order to both adapt to and mitigate climate change, pretty much the whole subsidy, regulation, and tax structure our Corporate Welfare Economy our nations are addicted to will have to be mostly dropped and rewrote from scratch. This, ultimately adding environmental value into the market structure, can probably be done without significantly harming revenues; nor need it destroy the economy. We just need some creative ideas. Ending significant corruption worldwide, might actually be toughest part of gaining control of the climate.

|2.2.07 @ 6:51PM|

I think what [biologist] is saying is that as higher waters eat away at the shores, all that sediment gets redistributed...potentially in places inconvenient for shipping.

Yeah, that half-centimeter rise in sea level from year to year means entirely new shorelines swept to sea continuously. Right.

|2.2.07 @ 7:02PM|

Yes that's right.

It's slow (for now), but just avert your gaze for a decade and whole (populated) islands can disappear due to changes in sediments and/or sea level. Deltoid actually has a very good assessment of just one such incident: http://tinyurl.com/yqlmse

Paul|2.2.07 @ 7:09PM|

Likewise! Scientists and economists backing the traditional "Theory" of "Gravity" have already been paid BILLIONS! [sic]

Shocked,

One of the difficult issues with AGW is that it's not easily falsifiable. Gravity is. It's one of the reasons that AGW attracted so many lunatics. Lunatics like theories which are easily woven into any outcome that serves an agenda. AGW is tailor made for that.

Now, this doesn't suggest that the idea of the AEI paying scientists is a good idea. In fact, I find it rather repulsive. Paying scientists for their work and letting them come up to an independent conclusion is one thing, farming them with a reward system to carry your water-- that's another thing altogether.

Even if one accepts AGW (or HIGW as I used to call it) exactly as the IPCC predicts it, what does it all mean? If humans didn't exist, the climate is not (despite what Al Gore tried to tell us) static or stable. At any one time, the climate is cooling or warming. So are we accelerating the warming? Are we reversing a cooling?

And what little evidence there is doesn't conclusively show that AGW is a Bad Thing(tm). Most lay people, I suspect, are worried about a human influence on the climate based upon the simple notion that "it's not natural". In other words "it's not as [insert deity here] intended". One of the reasons why evangelicals now do-- and always should have-- felt right at home alongside the environmental fundamentalists.

|2.2.07 @ 8:58PM|

Mike P,

"This is true, again provided the new solutions are cheaper than the old." True, but remember, we have to count the cost of the Global Warming externality when calculating this.

"But it's a bit of a broken window fallacy here,isn't it." I didn't break the window. The burning of fossil fuels broke the window. This isn't about keeping the wind-turbine makers in business.

|2.2.07 @ 9:16PM|

I didn't break the window. The burning of fossil fuels broke the window.

I agree that a fair accounting of the cost of carbon emitting technologies in comparing them with alternatives would include the costs of their externalities. Note that these costs are, at present, quite modest.

But I bring up the broken window to point out that one should beware the logic of arguing that the good effects of an artificially imposed cost justify the cost.

You can point to the things created supposedly because of high carbon taxes. You can't point to the things that didn't get created because high carbon taxes redirected resources toward carbon-freeing technologies. There is no telling which the market would have preferred absent the cost.

biologist|2.2.07 @ 9:23PM|

no, not centimeters of land eroding into the sea, but as the sea moves up the land, ports will gradually have to move toward the interior of the landmass they are on. shipping lanes will have to be dredged to increase their length, so they reach the new port location. I didn't say anything about the depth.

|2.2.07 @ 9:35PM|

"At present?" "At present?!?"

What the hell do you think we're talking about?

At present, Jumping Jesus Christ on Holy Pogo Stick!!!

What the hell, Mike?

uncle sam|2.3.07 @ 12:24AM|

Don't Panic

|2.3.07 @ 12:35AM|

"At present?" "At present?!?"

Yes, at present.

From the 4AR Summary, if CO2 concentrations were held at present levels, the temperature in 2100 would be a measely 1 degree Fahrenheit higher than today.

At present, I can offset my CO2 emissions through TerraPass, planting my own trees, or renting Wisconsin farmland for less than $10 per ton.

According to William Nordhaus's modeling, the economically optimal tax on carbon would be, at present, less than 20 cents for a gallon of gasoline.

At present, we could delay imposition of this tax by a decade, and it would have almost no effect on the temperature in 2100.

Yes, at present. At present, the costs of CO2 emissions are quite modest.

|2.3.07 @ 1:52AM|

The European Union wants to set a goal of avoiding an increase of more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) from pre-industrial levels to prevent "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate."

Good for the European Union. Let me know when India and China are part of the deal. Until the Chinese and Indians (and maybe some South Americans) are willing to cancel economic growth, the idea that anybody in the West is going to do more than slit their own wrists is a joke.


only European socialists could take their recent good weather and turn it into a catastrophe.

No, any self respecting socialist anywhere could do the same thing.

So, what does that make Al Gore, our self-appointed Earth Daddy?


At least there's fewer "tax the economy to death now" types running around here today.

|2.3.07 @ 8:41AM|

As I see it this is going to be a great opportunity for someone to cash in BIG! Nothing sells better than fear and trying to do good. Just look at the whole "green "marketing schemes... or for that matter how about my favorite... Anti bacterial soaps etc....

|2.3.07 @ 9:34AM|

as the sea moves up the land, ports will gradually have to move toward the interior of the landmass they are on.

No, they won't.

We're talking about 2 feet in a hundred years. You don't abandon hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure to deal with a 2 foot rise in sea level. Rather, you fill or pave or weld in order to raise the activities 2 feet, a cost that is trivial and totally swamped by normal upkeep.

Where will they move the ports for Long Beach and Los Angeles? Alameda? New York?

Name one port that would even think about moving, much less "every port on the planet" "gradually" moving.

|2.3.07 @ 10:33AM|

Shocked, Shocked! I am that you guys would rather still line up with a guy like Ron Bailey, who lied for hire for years to help bad guys misrepresent the state of the science, rather than align yourselves with the scientists who were right all along. Shocking, I say!

|2.3.07 @ 12:05PM|

I have to say I find the title of the article amusing "Global Warming: Not worse than we thought, but bad enough." Actually, its far worse than Bailey thought, since until a few months ago he denied and undercut the idea that it was even happening. Part of me wants to say kudo's to Bailey for finally coming around. There are some in the conservative think tank (read: money for apologetics) movement that never do come around 9look at AEI or Heritage on many issues). On the other hand I have noticed a tendency on right wing think tanks for people to undercut and fight the obvious (Mr. Sullum on cigarettes and cancer anyone?) for as many years as they can get away with it without seeming like total fools, and then they suddently switch strategies and say "well of course I agree with the consensus about X, I always have, I just am skeptical about implication y." Its just holding a front till it's clearly oer and then shifting to a more contested ground. I say let's not let them get away with that, since in this day and age we can pull out an old National Review or Reason magazine with ease and say "Holy crap, you guys were against ---(fill in the blank)--- all along?!!?"

Mike Laursen|2.3.07 @ 12:12PM|

Ken, this doesn't work like religion. When someone claims to prove a theory scientifically, you're supposed to doubt it at first, then change your mind when you're convinced that the evidence supports the theorty.

|2.3.07 @ 12:18PM|

It's also interesting to use this as an example of what's wrong with think tank influence on social movements in general, and corporate influence on libertarianism through think tanks specifically. There is simply no reason why a principled libertarian ever had to be against the growing global warming consensus. One can see why many of the corporations that fund libertarian magazines, events, etc., would align against this consensus, since it was probably and will surely lead to government and consumer changes that will hit their bottom line. In general libertarians should be wary of government intervention, but we have never been a priori against such government intervention as say, policing to stop terrorist attacks or government tracking of say deadly tornadoes. This is the best kind of government, efforts to save lives where the market would probably not respond effectively. Global warming fits this. GW could harm many, many lives. That's not good for liberty. I for one think its OK for government to intervene and tell one property owner that they cannot use their property in a way that will ruin my ability to enjoy my property. Overall that's a restriction that protects liberty and property.
But sadly the libertarian movement is so guided by the funders of many of its fronts that it seems to me that philosophy, or the idea of maximizing freedom and liberty for the greatest amount of folks, often takes a backseat to ideological defenses of certain vested interests cloaked in libertarian clothing. I'm thinking particularly of issues like employee privacy where literally thousands and millions of folks everyday liberty is restricted for the sake of a few hundreds 'liberty' to do what they want with their property rights. What does such a libertarianism offer of value?

|2.3.07 @ 12:24PM|

Mike, I'm glad that you think it should not work like religion. But I am afraid that the scientists here, as usual, were the ones that were acting the most like, well, scientists. The original consensus, and the counter-intuitive one, was that humans certainly were not making the planet warmer, with disasterous consequences...But slowly and surely more and more evidence accumulated until the majority of scientists, looking at numerous studies and data skeptically through peer review and what not, said "this is undeniable." It was the ideologically motivated (and sadly the hired guns) who took wierd steps, like looking extra hard for that rare hold out researcher or study that, shockingly, verified what they wanted to believe for ideological reasons (or again for reasons that agreed with their paycheck) but turned a perversly skeptical eye on the hundreds of researchers and studies which carefully argued otherwise. Skeptical, yes, dogmatically perverse, no.

|2.3.07 @ 12:40PM|

"Name one port that would even think about moving, much less "every port on the planet" "gradually" moving."

letsee apart from the obvious of New Orleans, there is Galveston (a big sand bar), Miami (A bigger sand bar), and yeass...Alameda ( a fucking mud flat, if the waves don['t get it, the earthquakes will.)

uncle sam|2.3.07 @ 4:03PM|

Jaded cattle become harder to stampede.

|2.3.07 @ 9:13PM|

"And though I make no claims to expertise, I suspect the law of universal gravitation received its empirical confirmation from the observations of Brahe and Kepler, rather than from measurements from some experimental apparatus. Even the optics experiments were more a heuristic than anything, I think. Or maybe you meant gravity as in 'stuff falls'. If so, you're a fucking idiot."

Observations are not something different from experiments. Experiments consist of a hypothesis, and observations made that will confirm or deny the hypothesis. Hypothesizing that an astronomical body will follow path 'x', and observing the actual path it takes, *is* an experiment.

|2.3.07 @ 9:44PM|

" then they suddently switch strategies and say "well of course I agree with the consensus about X, I always have, I just am skeptical about implication y."

Ken, say what you will about Bailey but at least make an honest argument. Yes, he was wrong about globabl warming. Maybe smug to boot about it. But when did he say "I agree with the consensus about X (global warming), I always have." ?

He said he changed his mind, explained his reasons, and admitted he had been wrong. Yes, he's shifted the argument over to questioning how bad will it be but what is wrong with that exactly? It doesn't necessarily logically follow that because X is true that the those predicting that it is true will necessarily be able to know the exact degree the effects of X will be in the distant future. This is especially true when it comes to global warming where all kinds of human and environmental variables, variables we can't predict, can take place in the next 50 to a hundred years to affect the conditions of the planet.

Mike Laursen|2.3.07 @ 11:02PM|

Ken, I've always had a hard time having a discussion with someone who makes accusations about broad groups like "libertarians" or "scientists here". It seems like what you're saying about Ronald Bailey amounts to "he changed his mind!" And, as for libertarians in general, I am an example of one who has never been a global warming denier.

|2.3.07 @ 11:51PM|

Ken, we gotta talk.

There is simply no reason why a principled libertarian ever had to be against the growing global warming consensus.

Except for those of us who had genuine doubts, myself being one for a very long time.

I'm an engineer, so you can tell me I'm not a scientist and therefore not "qualified" to "think" about such things. But I lead multi-disciplinary teams of scientists and engineers day in and day out, on what most people might consider high tech projects.

Lemme tell you a little secret Ken. "Consensus" does not make it so. I have seen "the prevailing consensus" get it wrong more times than I can even count.

If environmentalism is your religion then speak for yourself.

GW could harm many, many lives.

An asteroid could hit LA tommorrow too.

I am still not convinced that: a) the models they're using to predict the next 100 years are anywhere near right, or b) that the impact of GW is going to be significantly noticable for the majority of people.


I trust you're smart enough to know that "global warming" is a highly complex thing, and that understanding it is a multi-disciplinary venture of the highest order. Let me tell you another little truth that I've brought up around here before.

I work in aerospace. Do you have any -- I mean absolutely any -- concept of just how complex a modern commercial airliner is, to design, develop, certify, and get into commercial operation? I strongly suspect you have no clue.

Designing a commercial airplane is a highly multi-disciplinary venture. As a team leader, I watch my "subject matter experts" miss things on a regular basis. Not because we don't have the best and brightest working for us, but because there are always problems that fall between disciplines. Problems that span between, say, mechanial or electrical and materials engineering. Or between chemistry and materials engineering.

Or, I've got a physicist working for me and he misses something really big, because his educational knowledge is 400 miles wide and a breath taking 400 nm deep (sorry thoreau, nothing against you but when it comes to getting things done I really don't trust physics majors anymore).

To make sure 747's don't fall out of the sky on a routine basis, we've developed elaborate systems of peer reviews, test plans, and checks and balances all along the development process, to insure that we haven't missed something important.


Consider the magnitude of the effort that goes into putting a 747 into commercial operation. I know what it takes, and I'm telling you -- nobody has put anything even close to this amount of effort into making sure that those "global warming models" aren't making a mistake somewhere.

I'll bet you any sum of money you want to put on the table that there's at least one major flaw somewhere in those models. Odds are high that it's something that slips through the grey space between two major disciplines.

If we tried to put a military or commercial aircraft into service, based on the kinds of "models" they predict GW with, we'd get laughed out the room by the FAA and/or the services. "Go verify your hypotheses, then come back and see me again" they'd say. And yet these unverified GW models are what people like Gore Our Earth Daddy uses to predict doom and gloom -- and you, poor soul, clearly believe.

So again, if environmentalism is your religion that's fine. But don't slam the rest of us who don't share your faith.

|2.3.07 @ 11:59PM|

Ken. [sigh]

Just read some more of your post.

But sadly the libertarian movement is so guided by the funders of many of its fronts that it seems to me that philosophy, or the idea of maximizing freedom and liberty for the greatest amount of folks, often takes a backseat to ideological defenses of certain vested interests cloaked in libertarian clothing.

Up until now I had been running on the assumption that you're intellectually honest, and at least reasonably bright. If you retract the above, I'll put you back in that catagory. (but right now I'm wondering if you're somebody's troll....)

You think libertarians don't think for themselves? Then you need to think some more.

They may not always think well, but not thinking "for themselves" is not a shortcoming of the average libertarian.

As someone with libertarian inclinations, I run into more people who disagree with me around here, then almost anywhere else I go. This is not a homogeneous bunch around here, and they sure as HELL aren't being railroaded by big business interests as you imply.

|2.4.07 @ 12:12AM|

Unfortunately, we only have one planet to deal with (so far.) So if we muck it up, it's not like we easily get a second chance.

I'd rather be cautious. We DO have evidence that the average temperature of the Earth's climate is rising. Or are you denying that as well?

Whatever happened to "above all, do no harm." Bloody not very conversative, are you?

|2.4.07 @ 1:25AM|

Or are you denying that as well?

No, I'm not denying that. But I'm not convinced the sky is falling either.

Unfortunately, we only have one planet to deal with

Sure. And a comet could destroy the whole thing, long before Gore's hype has any chance of playing out (true or false).

Being alive is not 100% risk free. At some point you have to get reasonable in your risk assessements, and the decisions that follow from them.

Mark Bahner|2.4.07 @ 1:40AM|

"Ron Bailey makes a dreadful mess of his report on the IPCC AR4. He repeatedly confuses climate sensitivity (the eventual warming from doubling CO2) with the projection for 2100.

AR4 does not project warming of 2-4.5. That's the range for climate sensitivity."

Yes, that's the climate sensitivity, not the actual projected warming.

"In fact, it projects warming in the range 1.1-6.4 degrees C."

No, that's the range in Table SPM-2 for various model cases, from the B1 to the A1F1 scenario. The SPM contains no statement (that I'm aware of) that says that warming will lie somewhere within those model cases.

That is, there is no statement in the SPM that says that the warming will be inside the range of 1.1 to 6.4 deg C.

There is no statement in the SPM (that I'm aware of) that says that there couldn't be a 50% chance that the warming will be less than 1.1 degree C from the starting years of 1980 to 1999 to the finish years of 2090-2099.

|2.4.07 @ 3:34AM|

grump,

I'd rather be cautious.

And here I thought you were a realist. If this is your take on things, then I have to presume you are also in the leading ranks of born again christians. Because after all the bible says you'll burn in hell otherwise. And you only get one after life.

Let's take a realist's gander at this whole situation.

Suppose for a moment the models are correct. Then, if I've read it right, there's virtually nothing we can (realistically) do today, that will prevent "catastrophic" global warming by the end of this century.

So tell me why I should be willing to spend a dime on anything that impacts the years coming after that? By 2100, people will either have figured out how to deal with it, or they'll all be dead.

How do you (or anyone else) propose that we deal with the situation anyway? And don't give me the Magic Tooth Fairy Energy Technology line. By the time we've developed alternate energy sources that can substantially displace what we're using today, it will -- very probably, realistically -- be 2100 by then.

Maybe we'll develop hydrogen powered cars. And maybe, very possibly, we'll also learn that H2O is going to do the same thing CO2 does, only faster. :) That's not such a far fetched notion.

And sure we can go nuclear. But if human welfare really is your top priority here, then get real again. Nukes are not risk free either, and melting down a big nuke could do a huge number on the atmosphere and everything else.

Forget the Tooth Fairy, she isn't coming. Nobody has put forth a viable "alternative" energy option yet, that really makes sense if you think about it rationally for 30 seconds.


Suppose again, for the sake of argument, that big climate changes are coming. Then we have two options:

1) Voluntarily smash our current economic status, for the sake of little to no impact on what happens in the year 2100.

2) Start working on ways to deal with the climate changes that are coming.

Nobody has shown me one shred of rationale that says option 2 isn't, realistically, the very smartest bet we could take.

If I was being cautious, I'd go the second route. Because you cannot simply stop using C based energy today, and even if you do China and India aren't going to stop (nor is there any moral argument that could possibly justify saying that they should).

People can blabber all day about "we've got to develop alternate energy sources". But let's get real: by the time you've developed them, and they have propagated into places like China and India, it's going to be 2100 already.

So let's cut the BS already and get real. Anybody who thinks homo sapiens is unequal to the task of adapting to this climate change -- IF it's as big and bad and people like Gore claim -- is sadly underestimating our species.

|2.4.07 @ 6:48AM|

Ghengis,
see pages 11 (note the last paragraph), 14, and 19 of the report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
Note that Scenario A1b seems to be the current path we are on.

Then consider what it would take to follow the B1 path. From a link:
http://sres.ciesin.org/OpenProcess/htmls/B1_marker_scenario.html

"1. General description

The present trends of globalization and liberalization continue but there is a strong commitment among national and international governments towards sustainable development initiatives. Successful institutional innovations allow many problems that are currently hard or difficult to resolve to fall within the competency of both governments and non-governmental organizations. A more equitable income distribution, both within and between regions, is seen as a precondition for sustainable development.

The B1 world invests a large part of its productivity gains in equity, social institutions, and environment protection. The affluent regions develop consistent and effective ways to support sustainable development in the poor regions, technology transfer agreements being one of the instruments. Some of these regions are taking the lead in experimenting with new ways of income distribution. Rising affluence and intercultural exchange cause a growing interest in the non-material aspects of life, showing up in the form of declining working hours, clean-design technologies, recycling, and the like. Teleworking, internet-oriented education and info/entertainment, public-transport-oriented travelling, use of labor-intensive services for care of children and elderly lead to less energy- and materials-intensive consumption and production patterns ('dematerialization'). Technology development and life-style trends incorporate ever more the principles of sustainable resource use. Because business takes an active role, the pace of technological innovations is high and RD&D-expenses approach 2 percent of GWP. The transition from traditional to modern economic activities throughout the world proceeds faster than it has historically. Labor productivity continues to rise throughout the 21st century."

I am thinking this isn't so bad. I think it would take at least ending the subsidization and other protections of both the fossil fuel iundustry and the agricultural industry. And then adding a gradually increasing cabon offset tax of 3% per year; and to get rogue nationsin line a similarly gorwing tarrif on imports not similarly offset. This latter part should be combined with a similarly gradual end to all other tarrifs.

These will add costs, but at a predictable rate, as a consequence, people will invest in greater efficiency than normal. Cancelling those costs.

In 35 years we would be effectively carbon neutral. In another 35 years fossil fuels are pretty much gone. Civilization thrives, albeit at somewhat higher temps and sea levels than 100 years prior. But with confidence that those two markers wont rise much more anytime soon.

Is that so bad?

|2.4.07 @ 7:59AM|

These will add costs, but at a predictable rate, as a consequence, people will invest in greater efficiency than normal. Cancelling those costs.

I do wish people would stop imagining that improvements induced by imposing artificial costs justify those costs.

The consequential efficiency in no way cancels the costs. If an efficiency makes economic sense, it can and will be developed and adopted absent artificial costs. If the development or the adoption of an efficiency requires artificial costs, then the efficiency is no less artificial, and the underlying costs are still there.

|2.4.07 @ 8:02AM|

As for your preference for scenario B1 over scenario A1B, I'll first note that B1 is not what free people appear to do and will likely require quite a bit of force or reeducation to achieve. Aside from that, it is worth considering that the 2100 world per capita income (PDF) is $47,000 for B1 while it is $75,000 for A1B.

Granted, the people in the B1 future are more interested in the "non-material". Nonetheless, the extra $30k per person in the A1B future buys a hell of a lot of mitigation of the effects of global warming.

I am not convinced that our great grandchildren would appreciate our investment decisions in their future were we to trade significant economic growth for lower atmospheric CO2 levels.

|2.4.07 @ 9:08AM|

"I do wish people would stop imagining that improvements induced by imposing artificial costs justify those costs."

No imagination necessary. When gasoline prices rose, more people invested in hybrids than in SUVs. And since these costs only affect CO2 generation, anything not so generating is unaffected. As such no special 'justification' is necessary.

"The consequential efficiency in no way cancels the costs."

The improved efficiency does lower the cost of generation non-CO2 energy. Combined with requireing increasing carbon offsets, the two help to quickly outcompete the CO2 generation, thus cancelling whatever costs would otherwise be made by having the CO2 in the climate.

CO2 generation needs to have the climate externalities accounted for in some fashion.

But at real issue is all the subsidization and other corporate welfare schemes which encourages inneficiency.

The B1 scenario might not be what 'free people' do. But right now there isn't a whole lot of freedom either.

blah its late for me...bed time. I'll worry more abnout this in April when that section of 4AR gets released.

Mark Bahner|2.4.07 @ 11:19AM|

"Note that Scenario A1b seems to be the current path we are on."

No, we're not.

We're actually on a path that's LESS than the B1 scenario.

See slide 43 (page 57 of 64) of James Hansen's Keeling Lecture:

James Hansen Keeling lecture, page 57 of 64

The forcing growth rates of GHGs (including methane, CO2, and other GHGs) are currently actually below James Hansen's scenario that results in 1 degree Celsius temperature rise from 2000 to 2100.

Mark Bahner|2.4.07 @ 11:27AM|

"Aside from that, it is worth considering that the 2100 world per capita income (PDF) is $47,000 for B1 while it is $75,000 for A1B."

The "scenarios" in the IPCC reports have no relationship to reality. Don't be misled into thinking that they do.

The reality is that the world per capita income in 2100 will likely be more than 100 times greater than either the B1 or A1B scenarios.

Why 21st century economic growth will be spectacular

|2.4.07 @ 12:55PM|

sam-hec,

You're theorizing is so far out in left field that I don't even know where to begin. But I submit that this is one of the true, key motivations for this whole goddamned "GW" push:

A more equitable income distribution, both within and between regions, is seen as a precondition for sustainable development.

There is no possible way to accomplish this short of exerting large amounts of force on vast numbers of people across the planet.

I don't suppose you're one of those Bush fans who thinks invading Iraq was, and still is, the thing we should have done? Because

I am thinking this isn't so bad.

the amount of force you will have to exert on people, both inside and outside the developed West, is on the order of what Bush is trying to accomplish in Iraq.

Do note the degree of success Bush is having. :) :) :)

You're a fool if you think this scererio is anywhere near possible. The only thing that might be possible, is imposing big economic sanctions on the West, and lowering our economic standards to the undeveloped world. Because here is the essence of it:

The affluent regions develop consistent and effective ways to support sustainable development in the poor regions, technology transfer agreements being one of the instruments. Some of these regions are taking the lead in experimenting with new ways of income distribution.

Somebody is asking for sacrifices, and you will not get these sacrifices without imposing draconian, totalitarian measures.


This

In 35 years we would be effectively carbon neutral. In another 35 years fossil fuels are pretty much gone.

shows that you know as little about technology as Gore Our Earth Daddy. As I said above, nobody has put up rational "alternative" energy sources that make any real sense, if you think about them rationally.

The improved efficiency does lower the cost of generation non-CO2 energy.

No, it frequently doesn't, and you've got a lot to learn about the economics of efficiency.

CO2 generation needs to have the climate externalities accounted for in some fashion.

You've done absolutely nothing to justify this assertion.


The gist of this whole sche-bang is that it comes down to an income re-distribution scheme. It's the bleeding heart liberal left, once again lamenting the success of Western civilization -- with a determination to destroy it if they can possibly find a way to do it.

Yes, that's sweeping generalization, and I submit that this

A more equitable income distribution, both within and between regions, is seen as a precondition for sustainable development.....Some of these regions are taking the lead in experimenting with new ways of income distribution.

is the reason why such a generalization is justified. Who is this "Some of these regions..." part directed at, other than the USA? Europe is already on this suicide train.

|2.4.07 @ 2:41PM|

I think I'm saying more than that Mr. Bailey changed his mind. I'm trying to comment on two things: 1. how ideology can warp usually skeptical intelligent people into buying into some goofy ideas and 2. how ideology can be manipulated by vested interests through the ability of some institutions to 'shape' debates. I agree that Reason specifically, and libertarians in general, can be a pretty broad group. And good for those who are libertarians or lean libertarian (what I consider myself) and did not fall for the GW denial stuff. But let's be frank that for the past few years libertarian think tanks had many a conference, article, study, forum, etc., designed to undermine acceptance of hte growing consensus about GW. I find it interesting because I think acceptance of GW or not should have little bearing on whether one is a 'real' libertarian. So why the prominence? I think it has to do with vested interests who work very hard to make ideology look like philosophy. If Exxon can make people think that not accepting GW is a very libertarian thing to do, then they have a lot of followers, way more than they would have if they just said "geez, accepting this is terrible for Exxon's profits."
I know that the prevailing consensus can be wrong about things. But I also know that it often is the prevailing consensus, especially among groups of experts, because of the strenght of its data and findings. If you were going to spend money on a plumbing problem, and every plumber you talked to told you that the problem was X, but you did not like the fact that X was expensive so you looked and looked until you found someone who told you that Y, which is a more 'acceptable' diagnosis, was really the problem, then I would say you should prepare for some really bad plumbing problems. This is the diffiuclty I have with intelligent design supporters. Yes, the consensus of scientists and the mass of studies and data could be wrong, or the handful of holdouts could be. The odds are going to be in favor of the latter. On matters that do not cross over into our ideologies we normally act this way. It's just that people need to work to cultivate this when it does conflict with ideology, especially when such ideology could easily manipulated by the interests that it favors.

|2.4.07 @ 3:06PM|

"the amount of force you will have to exert on people, both inside and outside the developed West, is on the order of what Bush is trying to accomplish in Iraq."

I thinkyou are ignoring a key point I have been trying to make repeatedly.

Subsidies and other corporate welfare are bad. Simply ending all that so that we can genuinely be a free market society is a big precondition that I see to actually tackling global warming without killing the economy. Start there. Don't assume I am out in 'left field'.

|2.4.07 @ 3:40PM|

Genghis,

Somebody whose judgement about the science has been proven so spectacularly wrong would do well to show a little intellectua humility.

Who are to you lecture people whose judgement on the subject to date has proven to be vastly superior to yours?

|2.4.07 @ 10:36PM|

Simply ending all that so that we can genuinely be a free market society is a big precondition that I see to actually tackling global warming without killing the economy.

Okay, that I can drink too. Perhaps, I've misunderstood you.

If there's a "fix" to the GW problem, it's freeing up the global economy so it fires on all cylinders. Somehow it didn't sound like that's what you were saying above.


Get real joe.

Mike Laursen|2.5.07 @ 12:10AM|

ideology can warp usually skeptical intelligent people into buying into some goofy ideas

Sure, I've seen it happen.

> But let's be frank that for the past few years libertarian think
> tanks had many a conference, article, study, forum, etc.,
> designed to undermine acceptance of hte growing consensus
> about GW.

Seemed more to me like a knee jerk defensive response against what seemed to be liberals pushing a new reason to grow the size of government.

But, you may be right. Maybe corporate interests bought off some of the folks in the think tanks. Is that so awful? We still have free speech and there are plenty of people presenting the other side of the story.

|2.5.07 @ 3:33PM|

An aside, this is an amusing Frank Capa Global Warming flick from 50 years ago.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

Most Popular Stories

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:


(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2012, Reason.com