New at Reason

April 12, 2007

Steve Chapman looks ahead at the debate over what to do about global warming, and sees disaster.

Comments

|4.12.07 @ 8:57AM|#

I think it will be a very hard thing for libertarian voices to regain much credibility in the global warming debate. For years most prominent ones denied the science to the point of absurdity, one guesses because they feared that this was one of those problem that the Magical Mystical Market could not solve. They are of course correct. Laissez-faire government policy is and would be a disaster for the environment. Letting people make voluntary exchanges completely unregulated leads to environmental disaster. This is not to say we should kill the goose that lays the golden egg of prosperity (which I think the market is) in order to clean up the goose's droppings which stink up the yard and make it unlivable. But one thing we should realize is that even the "free market solutions" now being touted by libertarians (now that they finally admit GW is real and a problem) involve government regulation (without the government noone would 'trade carbon emissions' for example, but then again without the government enforcing tort law I could dump pig sewage into you yard). You can't have markets without vigorous government, though a government that is too vigorous can hamper markets to the point of killing them. It's fine to talk about reaching the level of regulation which best protects liberty and choice, but lets let the libertarian purists (government bad!) know that they just will not be taken seriously in the GW debate. After all, they earned that.

thoreau|4.12.07 @ 9:03AM|#

Good column.

|4.12.07 @ 9:04AM|#

Ken,

I think you're confusing libertarians with anarchists, esp. with regard to tort and property rights.

ed|4.12.07 @ 9:05AM|#

Ken, I would stop saying things like "Magical Mystical Market" if you yourself want to be taken seriously.

thoreau|4.12.07 @ 9:07AM|#

What ed said. There were a few good points in your post, Ken, but you ruined it.

You know the thing you said about damaging credibility? I thought it was a reasonable point. I also thought that you did a good job of illustrating the point.

|4.12.07 @ 9:09AM|#

I'm still not convinced there is anything that can be done to stop global warming. But I am convinced the fear of GW buttresses the case for the consumption tax, which is evidently now being retooled as a "carbon tax." Regardless if GW can be stopped, or even needs to be, I'll take anything that replaces the punitive, invasive nature of our current tax system. I don't mind using the irrational fears, overly dramatic inclinations, and the herd mentality of liberals to get what I want. I'm a whore like that.

Bagel|4.12.07 @ 9:10AM|#

Ken,

Please explain why you need a "vigorous government" to have a market or is that statement only relative to global warming and environmental issues?

Grotius|4.12.07 @ 9:11AM|#

We all need to step back and ask What Would Tocqueville Do (WWTD)? ;)

One-O-One|4.12.07 @ 9:20AM|#

Bagel, I'm sure Ken can handle himself, but you are picking on one of the few things he got correct. In any market, when two individuals willfully enter into a contract, that contract only has value when it is certain to be fulfilled. The government essentially ensures those contracts are fulfilled through various means. And, in case you haven't noticed, the Government does so fairly vigorously.

|4.12.07 @ 9:21AM|#

Let's get this out of the way. Libertarians are never taken seriously per se. When our interests in small government align with other more significant interests, those interests will occasionally adopt our rhetoric.

Also, waiting until the satellite discrepancy was resolved to decide that the data all was in agreement doesn't to this day strike me as foolish.

Also, we don't have any information from the alarmist camp about what their proposals will cost and what the benefits will actually be. For people who are all reality based and stuff, that is pretty thin gruel. If I spend two trillion, do I get one degree difference in 75 years? This is not an unreasonable question.

What is unreasonable is the idea that man made global warming is real, so we must assume the worst outcomes of the spread and tar anyone who suggests caution as a denialist who should have no credibility.

SugarFree|4.12.07 @ 9:22AM|#

Now that Ken has struck us a mortal blow with the classic "Ha ha, I told you so!" school ground argument, maybe we can move on to carbon tax proposals... unless someone else is interested in being a whiny douche...

Here's why a carbon tax / income tax swap will never work: Too many people on the left and in the Green movement want to have the solutions to Global Warming severely impact and cripple our economy.

Anti-globalization protestors, Greens, Deep Ecologists, Marxist anarchists (oxymoron that they are), low-impact lifestylers, and every other quasi-leftist, anti-capitalist group has a core tenant that the modern economic and consumerist atmosphere of America and the First World is morally wrong. It is a religious mission for them. They will not be happy until the way they live is the way you live and they are content to use any means necessary to force it on you.

SugarFree|4.12.07 @ 9:30AM|#

kohlrabi,

Don't take Ken's conflation of libertarians and anarchists away from him... it's the only argument he has.

Well, that and his libert-freude.

thoreau|4.12.07 @ 9:30AM|#

JasonL-

Fair points, but what would you say about the subject of reputational risk? Would you say that it's generally a good thing when people and organizations and businesses are only trusted to the extent that their claims prove to be reliable? Do you regard this as a useful mechanism in the marketplace of ideas? If not in the marketplace of ideas, what about in the marketplace of medications, or the marketplace of automobiles, or some other consumer product?

Grotius|4.12.07 @ 9:31AM|#

One of the potential weaknesses of a carbon tax is that may not encourage the development of clean coal technology. Whether we like it or not coal is going to be around for a while and discovering ways to burn it more cleanly seems to be an important thing to encourage (whether one buys into CGW or not).

|4.12.07 @ 9:38AM|#

SugarFree,

I believe the real reason carbon taxes wouldn't work is because there will always be other countries that don't tax carbon. So the carbon emitters can just relocate. The only way to make them work would be offsets in other taxes/regulations, which Chapman gives only a little discussion of at the end of the column.

Also, I like how you go from deriding Ken's schoolyard argument to saying carbon taxes won't work because of the character flaws of the environmentalist movement. Pot, Kettle, etc.

|4.12.07 @ 9:39AM|#

The government also invested in alternative energy in the 1990s and 00s, and now solar is growing at about 30% per year.

Also, since you don't seem to realize this, large trucks and SUVs are EXEMPT from fleet CAFE standards. The average fuel economy of vehicles covered by CAFE standards has risen along with the standards. Bringing up the gas mileage of SUVs doesn't demonstrate that efficiency standards don't work to improve efficiency; it demonstrates that the lack of fuel efficiency standards doesn't work.

|4.12.07 @ 9:44AM|#

The United States cannot solve global warming by taxing its own citizens. The emerging economies in China, India, and the third-world will wipe out whatever effect carbon taxes in the US might provide.

The only logical solution for global warming is for the US to conquer the rest of the world, then make Al Gore the regent of the newly acquired territories.

|4.12.07 @ 9:45AM|#

thoreau:

I'm really saying a couple of things.

1) I don't think saying "We don't know," up to the point the satellite data was resolved should harm anyone's credibility. If you falsified or misrepresented data, that should harm your credibility.

2) The amount of false or misrepresented data is not large, so the ding to credibility shouldn't be large. Skepticism is almost always warranted. It is inaccurate to depict the broad libertarian position as 'deceitful' or even 'wrong', because there was at least as much commentary along the very reasonable lines of "uhh, you are asking us to spend trillions of dollars and you can't tell us what we are buying".

|4.12.07 @ 9:50AM|#

I don't think saying "There's no need to prepare for war" up until Pearl Harbor should harm anyone's credibility.

|4.12.07 @ 9:52AM|#

A plain 'ol consumption tax is more marketable, less intimidating, more realizable, and perhaps as effective as a carbon tax. Even if it isn't as effective, that fact that it is possible makes me think that is where our energy should be expended. Pardon the pun.

Bagel|4.12.07 @ 9:54AM|#

One-O-One,

I understand how government can act to enforce the fulfillment of contracts, enforce torts, etc. but in no way does that make government a necessity for a market.

|4.12.07 @ 9:57AM|#

Cab,

Not all consumption (or production of consumables) is equally carbon-intensive.

Grotius|4.12.07 @ 9:58AM|#

Bagel,

Well it is probably the case that markets are pre-political entities. At least pre-political in the sense of trade between communities. Of course in re: intra-village trade what is political and what is "social" may be difficult to tease out.

|4.12.07 @ 9:59AM|#

joe:

You are misrepresenting your confidence level in our ability to prepare given what we know. Even now, we have a range of no big deal to pretty bad. Maybe we need to prepare for war by having some rifles. Maybe we need nukes. You are sure you want to argue for building nukes because the concept of war exists?

Maybe the margin of effectiveness of each additional dollar we throw at this is small enough that we are as prepared as we can be.

ed|4.12.07 @ 10:00AM|#

Anyone remember the story of the three bears? Substitute climate for porridge. Are the GW alarmists actually saying that our current climate is "just right" and that a bit of warming (or a bit of cooling) will lead to catastrophe? How fortunate for we humans that our climate is "just right". How ever did we survive the last ice age? Or the warm period before it?

SugarFree|4.12.07 @ 10:01AM|#

Smappy,

If I was pointing out their character flaws on a Green discussion board, I'd accept being argumentally equivilent to Ken. I believe doing it here is discussing the motives behind our ideological opposites. Motives are always in play when examining arguments; if they weren't poor Ron Bailey couldn't be skinned alive every time he posted because of a few shares of oil stock. (Hell, I have mutual funds... one of the companies I'm invested in could be selling puppy meat to taco stands for all I know.)

I don't see why we both can't be right about carbon taxes, I was just merely pointing out that reason will never sway moral objections*. I was only trying to offer a piece, not the whole puzzle.

*I swear on a stack of Inconvenient Truth DVDs that is not a magazine pun.

|4.12.07 @ 10:11AM|#

Conservative Dictionary (joe), I hear you and agree that if the sole goal is curtailing certain emissions a carbon tax would be better. However, I just don't see a carbon tax as doable politically. I'd rather have a less effective consumption tax than what we have now, that's all.

Chris Monnier|4.12.07 @ 10:15AM|#

> One of the potential weaknesses of a carbon tax is that may not encourage the development of clean coal technology.

No, a carbon tax would accelerate the development of cleaner coal technology. Assuming CO2 being emitted from each big power plant could be measured (I think this is a pretty safe assumption), the amount of carbon tax a given power plant would owe could be based on the metered CO2 it emitted. If a power plant emitted less CO2, it would pay lower carbon taxes.

It wouldn't make sense to meter CO2 coming out of cars or smaller emission sources; for those cases a simple standard tax (X dollars per gallon, etc.) would make more sense.

|4.12.07 @ 10:19AM|#

ed,

It isn't the absolute temperature - people and wildlife live successfully in different climates, and at different elevations above sea level, right now.

It's the rapid change that's the problem. The communities and ecosystems in each climate have developed and adapted to succeed in that climate.

|4.12.07 @ 10:20AM|#

Regardless if GW can be stopped, or even needs to be, I'll take anything that replaces the punitive, invasive nature of our current tax system.

Sure. But who really believes that the carbon tax will replace the income and payroll tax system?

And to get rid of the punitive/invasive nature of income and payroll taxes, you have to abolish them entirely. A 10% income tax still requires just as much government intrusion into your affairs as a 50% income tax.

Grotius|4.12.07 @ 10:21AM|#

Chris Monnier,

Alright that makes sense. However, the carbon tax proposals I've seen taxed the material itself - the coal - instead of what was coming out the pipe.

|4.12.07 @ 10:22AM|#

Cab,

I see a carbon tax as more politically feasible, because one can reduce one's level of taxation by changing one's behavior.

Thank you, Chris Monnier, for pointing out that mistake in Chapman's article. A carbon tax taxes carbon outputs into the atmosphere. Coal plants that sequester their C02 aren't going to be taxed alongside plants that send it through a smokestack.

|4.12.07 @ 10:24AM|#

It's the rapid change that's the problem

What rapid change joe? The completly unrealistic worst-case scenario in the IPCC report? Or the one that you have in you infinite wisdom for seen. Oh I know, its the one Al Gore talked about.

|4.12.07 @ 10:25AM|#

That way, we'd get environmental improvements and a lighter load on companies and workers. Meanwhile, the total tax burden on the economy would be unchanged.

Yep, and red light cameras give us safer intersections...yeah..that's it....

Not disagreeing they're preferable, and more preferable is the offset, but the problem is that you're backing into a tax cut when things get better. This is great, but the govt won't stand for that.

However, the carbon tax proposals I've seen taxed the material itself - the coal - instead of what was coming out the pipe.

It's like when I was in grad school at UF. They came up with a "stormwater management utility" which was, essentially, a tax. I could very easily put in rain barrels, grass pavers for a parking area, and reduce my runoff to almost nil, but the process to get my bill reduced was horrendus to impossible.

I assume it's still in force, but I don't know.

Grotius|4.12.07 @ 10:26AM|#

Anyway, over the long run it probably won't matter much what Europe or the U.S. or Japan does.

Grotius|4.12.07 @ 10:28AM|#

Matt,

Interesting.

Also, lot of the technological fixes for coal are of course pretty hypothetical.

|4.12.07 @ 10:29AM|#

val,

I'll treat your feelings about the IPCC report, Al Gore, myself, and everyone else who's done a better job than you of figuring out the global warming problem with all the respect they're due. See "credibilty, libertarians and global warming."

At least the America First Committee had the decency to get off the state once their ideas were routed by reality.

|4.12.07 @ 10:47AM|#

And we'll treat all your comments regarding peoples mothers with the all the respect they are due as well.

|4.12.07 @ 10:57AM|#

Aside from Joe, does anybody really believe that these hypothetical carbon tax revenues will be used in a way which could be construed as productive? The externality (appeal to buzzword) argument takes as a given that the revenue from a tax intended to capture the extenal costs will be used to directly mitigate that external cost, when in fact it is much more likely the tax will be used in wrong-headed, if not counterproductive ways.

|4.12.07 @ 11:01AM|#

val,

I'll treat your feelings about the IPCC report, Al Gore, myself, and everyone else who's done a better job than you of figuring out the global warming problem with all the respect they're due. See "credibilty, libertarians and global warming."

At least the America First Committee had the decency to get off the state once their ideas were routed by reality

joe,

Ignoring your sidesteping and smugness, my question as before is: what rapid changes and what reality are you refering to? Out of the multiple scenarios presented in the IPCC which one are you trying to mitigate? Considering you keep refering to rapid changes, it sounds like you are talking about the most unlikely (by IPCC's own admition) scenario.

|4.12.07 @ 11:02AM|#

What is it about global warming issues that tends to make people really nasty to each other? I would submit that the looming problem of Medicare's liabilities are far more serious for the immediate future of this country, yet debates regarding it are heated, yet very civil.

And that's just an example, please don't make me into a thread hijacker.

Grotius|4.12.07 @ 11:03AM|#

P Brooks,

I'm sure they be as effectively used as tax dollars generally are.

|4.12.07 @ 11:04AM|#

Brooks, I think the argument must be that tax itself, by burdening the production of C02, will Save the Planet merely by being levied.

Any other argument for the tax founders upon the Facts of Life: arguing that it will supplant our current tax system is willfully naive to the point of stupidity, and claiming that the revenues will be used to mitigate climate change is wishful to the point of delusion.

|4.12.07 @ 11:07AM|#

PBrooks,

I am not sure use of the money for mitigation is at all important.

A shift in the structure of the economic load government places on the market towards materials throughput (including carbon) and away from labor and income changes the incentive structure and shapes behavior.

The mitigation comes from this, not what is done with the money.

It is a different issue whether or not government should be in the R&D biz...

|4.12.07 @ 11:08AM|#

No one is discussing the level of this tax.

According to William Nordhaus's 2000 book, the optimal carbon tax would be less than $20 per ton of CO2 emitted today, rising through the decades as the costs of newly added CO2 emissions accumulate.

To equate this to something we can relate to, the present day optimal carbon tax on a gallon of gas is less than 20 cents -- well below the current transportation-based tax on a gallon of gas.

And since the economic concept of a Pigouvian tax does not dictate how its revenue is used, the optimal carbon tax is already subsumed entirely by the current tax on gas.

Are these the carbon tax levels people are talking about?

uncle sam|4.12.07 @ 11:09AM|#

I see two sides getting snarky and engaging in snark escalation.
Notice how you feel when you snark. Just like when you were in school or arguing with your sibling.

Does anyone have any idea how much CO2 is released in order to support the government and all its activities: bureaucracies, subsidies, war-making, etc.?

I thought not.

|4.12.07 @ 11:11AM|#

R C Dean,

I share your suspicions. It was only recently that the US stopped taxing telephone customers to pay for the Spanish-American War.

I do not trust the "we'll use tax x to offset tax y" and/or the "we'll only have tax m until project n is paid for" arguments.

Dave W.|4.12.07 @ 11:15AM|#

Anyway, over the long run it probably won't matter much what Europe or the U.S. or Japan does.

If they decide to close their markets to the real polluters it would.

|4.12.07 @ 11:17AM|#

"Brooks, I think the argument must be that tax itself, by burdening the production of C02, will Save the Planet merely by being levied."

Exactly, it's about building in a competitive advantage for less-carbon-intensive means of producing goods, services, and energy. If A costs more than B, we will see more B and less A.

Gore's cabon tax plan explicity states that it would replace the payroll tax - not because Social Security and Medicare payments reduce global warming, but because of the effect on the tax on carbon-intensive operations.

Sal Paradise|4.12.07 @ 11:22AM|#

Well said, R C Dean.

"Of course, no one wants to pay more in taxes. Here's the good news: We don't have to. Some economists propose that carbon tax revenues be used to finance equal cuts in income and payroll taxes."

I'm not sure how anyone can type, or say, this with a straight face.

|4.12.07 @ 11:22AM|#

"I am not sure use of the money for mitigation is at all important."

Neu Mejican, it is obvious from reading previous threads that you spend a lot more time thinking about this stuff than I, but I am mired in my old-fashioned "cause and effect" analytical framework. Is the carbon tax to be nothing more than penance, in the manner of Italian princes buying indulgences in order that the Pope might afford a larger and more elaborate Easter Bonnet?

|4.12.07 @ 11:22AM|#

Mike P,

Norhaus's reasoning that the "last" ton of carbon in the atmosphere is more damaging than the "first" is illogical. The last ton doesn't do more severe damage because it is any different than the first, but because the first and second and third are already in the atmosphere.

If you drown in 8 feet of water, is it the water at the bottom of the pool that's responsible, or at the top? That question doesn't make any sense, it's all of the water in the pool. Any one gallon is just as reponsible as any other gallon, regarless of when it went in.

And when did transportation infrastructure stop needing funding, just because of global warming? People driving around with ICE-powered cars impose a cost in terms of environmental quality, and a cost in terms of road construction.

|4.12.07 @ 11:23AM|#

P Brooks,

Demand Kurve!

|4.12.07 @ 11:24AM|#

An interesting article which look critically at Nordhaus's model...

http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/All_Models_Are_Wrong_(SDR).pdf

"As in many of the integrated climate-economy
models, Professor Nordhaus makes many other assumptions, assumptions that
work against his conclusions, assumptions that are not questioned or tested.
These include:
ž Consumers and producers make decisions that are consistent with global,
intertemporal optimization under full information. (We never make mistakes
in economic decisions; the distant and delayed effects of our decisions, even
those occurring over centuries, are fully internalized.)
ž Instant or rapid equilibration of factor inputs to prices. (The economy and
energy demand respond to prices very quickly; there are no significant lags
in the turnover of carbon energy consuming capital stocks, the development
of new technologies, changes in settlement patterns or transportation
infrastructure, and so on.)
ž Energy efficiency improves and the carbon intensity of the economy falls
exogenously. (Technology improves automatically and without costs, delays,
or ''side effects''.)
ž All non-energy resources are excluded. (Interactions between climate change
and other issues are unimportant.)"

|4.12.07 @ 11:31AM|#

And, further, how can it be that the situation is so dire that immediate drastic action is required if it doesn't matter what we spend the carbon tax revenues on?
This severely weakens the argument.

|4.12.07 @ 11:33AM|#

joe,

If you understood and/or believed in margins, you'd probably be a libertarian.

If you are standing comfortably in five feet of water, and someone pours in a sixth foot that goes over your head, are you going to charge the person who puts in the first five feet with murder?

Besides, I think the increasing optimal level of the carbon tax through the decades is due more to the fact that future generations will be much richer than we and can therefore bear a higher tax better. Apologies if my statement on their CO2 piling onto ours was taken as the sole or principal reason.

And I did not suggest that transportation taxes would be reduced at all. I merely said that the carbon tax on gasoline -- since, as you note, the theory is that it's the tax qua tax that matters -- should be applied to transportation as the current tax is, not added on top of the current tax and applied to something else.

|4.12.07 @ 11:33AM|#

PBrooks,

Let me, again, proclaim that I am a carbon tax skeptic.

There are more important changes to policy that can have a bigger impact (changes in building codes and zoning requirements, for instance).

Our current system of labor taxes rewards technology that reduces the need for labor (but is indifferent to CO2 production). A system that rewarded technology that reduced CO2, but was indifferent to increased labor would have an impact on the kind of capital investment that occurs.

Grotius|4.12.07 @ 11:42AM|#

Dave W.,

If they decide to close their markets to the real polluters it would.

You do realize that this would cause tremendous damage to the economies of Europe, the U.S. and Japan, right?

Mike Laursen|4.12.07 @ 11:43AM|#

Don't take Ken's conflation of libertarians and anarchists away from him...

It's not like Ken came up with this conflation out of thin air. The idea that anarchism is the only true form of libertarianism has been ensconced in Libertarian Party culture since the 1970s. Of course, Ken may have missed that Hit & Run is far from being a cackle of capital-L Libertarians.

|4.12.07 @ 11:47AM|#

P Brooks,

"And, further, how can it be that the situation is so dire that immediate drastic action is required if it doesn't matter what we spend the carbon tax revenues on?" Because incentivising the economy is expected to be the solution. Have a little faith in the capacity of free enterprise to innovate in response to the profit motive!

Mike P,

"If you are standing comfortably in five feet of water, and someone pours in a sixth foot that goes over your head, are you going to charge the person who puts in the first five feet with murder?"

This isn't about charging anyone with anything. This is about solving the problem. And yes, in that circumstance, the first foot of water matter just as much as the last foot. Without that first foot, the last foot wouldn't drown me.

Dave W.|4.12.07 @ 11:50AM|#

Grotius | April 12, 2007, 11:42am | #
Dave W.,

If they decide to close their markets to the real polluters it would.

You do realize that this would cause tremendous damage to the economies of Europe, the U.S. and Japan, right?

Relative to global warming related damage, you mean? I must confess I don't, but I would like to.

I do know that there are options that fall in between "unrestricted trade with China" and "ban on trade with China." For example: "trade with China to an extent depending upon their environmental reform."

Seems like this would be a good issue for the HnR writers to be exploring. In place of the kind of things they are writing about global warming now. *hint, hint*

JT Barrie|4.12.07 @ 11:51AM|#

One puzzling problem is that we have had similar global warming experiences prior to this one - and it's only recently that we started burning carbon-based fuels. So what caused the previous global warming. I'm a libertarian who is sympathetic to low growth and promotion of alternative renewable energy sources and can think of many reasons to curtail carbon fuels. Global Warming doesn't make my top 5. And many have pointed out the boondoggles that arise from legislating such behaviors.

|4.12.07 @ 11:55AM|#

Letting people make voluntary exchanges completely unregulated leads to environmental disaster.

Indeed. Which is why the most regulated markets ever - those of the Eastern Block, led to a veritable natural paradise on earth... oh, wait. Not.

|4.12.07 @ 11:58AM|#

You can't have markets without vigorous government, though a government that is too vigorous can hamper markets to the point of killing them.

Ken, would that not be the solution? If an unhampered market pollutes the most, and the idea is to pollute the least, then why not kill the markets?

You cannot have it both ways.

|4.12.07 @ 12:00PM|#

"One of the potential weaknesses of a carbon tax is that may not encourage the development of clean coal technology. Whether we like it or not coal is going to be around for a while and discovering ways to burn it more cleanly seems to be an important thing to encourage (whether one buys into CGW or not)."

We could reduce man's contribution of CO2 by 60% if we switched from coal to nuclear.

|4.12.07 @ 12:06PM|#

If they decide to close their markets to the real polluters it would.

Glad so see someone else realize that the only way to curtail carbon output in a meaningful way is to do it (a) globally via (b) a Global SuperState or (c) a trade war.

|4.12.07 @ 12:21PM|#

"It's the rapid change that's the problem. The communities and ecosystems in each climate have developed and adapted to succeed in that climate."

It hasn't been proven that there will be a dramatic rapid change.

|4.12.07 @ 12:22PM|#

I think a carbon tax is the best of crappy options. I wouldn't mind one that is offset by payroll tax deductions or income tax deductions. I also wouldn't terribly mind one that layers on top of those taxes but only marginally.

My position: We don't know and can't assign a probability to great harm that could be credibly be offset by great expense on our end. We also have to pay taxes somehow and there are externalities to be accounted for. Lower other taxes, create a carbon tax, and you don't create great national expense and might stave off deep eco loonies.

|4.12.07 @ 12:40PM|#

"Glad so see someone else realize that the only way to curtail carbon output in a meaningful way is to do it (a) globally via (b) a Global SuperState or (c) a trade war."

Yeah, I only wish there was some mechanism whereby countries could agree to behave in certain ways, in exchange for other countries doing the same.

That would be a real treat. It would certainly sow accord. But it would appear to ber a difficult problem to negotiate.

|4.12.07 @ 12:45PM|#

Did anyone else see the BBC documentary on the "Global Warming Swindle?" I found it fairly convincing and looked into some of the original research, i.e. the Mann article that gave birth to the ridiculous "hockey-stick" graph showing a sudden jump in earth's temperature in the 1960s. The satellite data show the world is warming, but that doesn't prove it has anything to do with carbon. Mars is warming too and its ice caps are melting. I think it's premature to start starving people and hamstringing industry just in case.

|4.12.07 @ 12:46PM|#

How much global cooling will it take to get rid of the bullshit? Whatever happened to running out of landfills? Tobacco, anyone? War on Drugs? War on Education? Oh yeah, we won that one. Terrorism? What will be the next crisis du jour? Thank god I'm an atheist and old.

|4.12.07 @ 12:49PM|#

One quibble with Chapman's article:

He writes, "the Supreme Court says the Environmental Protection Agency has violated the law by not regulating auto emissions[.]"

I think it's important to be clear about what the Supreme Court held in Mass. v. EPA because the left will probably use it to beat people over the head. The Court did not hold that the EPA violated the law by not regulating auto emissions. What it held was that the EPA violated the law by not providing a justification for its decision not to regulate that was sufficient according to the Court's reading of the governing statute and regs.

In other words, the Court didn't hold that failure to regulate cars' CO2 emissions was unlawful. It held that, regardless of whether the EPA decides to regulate or not to regulate, its decision must be supported by reasons that satisfy the statute/regs.

Dave W.|4.12.07 @ 12:57PM|#

Yeah, I only wish there was some mechanism whereby countries could agree to behave in certain ways, in exchange for other countries doing the same.

This reminds me of some of my recent political development. In the 2000 election, I was indifferent as between Bush and Gore. I didn't vote for either. I voted, but abstained on the presidential choice.

Prior to 9/11 I was okay with Bush, until he announced that we were pulling the US out of Kyoto. Then I became mildly irritated with Bush and began to wish I voted for Gore.

Now, after 9/11, and especially after the announcement of the pre-emptive war doctrine in summer 2002, I became what was commonly called a "Bush hater." So much so that I left the US.

However, as I was becoming a Bush hater, and leaving the US, I listened to the Bush administration on Kyoto and became convinced that pulling out of that was the correct thing to do. It was hard for me to listen to an administration I "hated" so much, but sometimes ya gotta do that.

No pint, I guess. I just find it funny that the thing that got me started down the road of "Bush hating" is something where I have come around to the Bush camp.

|4.12.07 @ 12:58PM|#

Yeah, I only wish there was some mechanism whereby countries could agree to behave in certain ways, in exchange for other countries doing the same.

That would be a real treat. It would certainly sow accord. But it would appear to ber a difficult problem to negotiate.

Two scenarios that lead to a treaty. Both parties get something of value to offer, and they are willing to give up something in return for getting access to what the other party has. One party has enough of an advantage to force the other to agree.

How exactly does the US get China to stop its one billion people from raising their standard of living to US or Europe's standards without dramatically increasing their CO2 outputs? That is not sarcasm, I really want to know what you think.

|4.12.07 @ 1:04PM|#

This isn't about charging anyone with anything. This is about solving the problem.

According to the IPCC 4AR, if atmospheric CO2 levels were magically frozen at today's levels, the warming in this century would be a measly 1°F. The environmental damage due to that amount of warming would be minor indeed.

Making people today pay an extreme price to reduce damages seen on a graph in a hundred years due to CO2 emitted by their much wealthier descendants fifty years hence would be insane.

Thus the optimal carbon tax today is a relatively modest $20 per ton. If I recall the last time I ran the calculations, that's still about 1% of US GDP. Of course, that also doesn't count any carbon sinks, which one would hope would be included as well in any globally harmonized tax.

And yes, in that circumstance, the first foot of water matter just as much as the last foot. Without that first foot, the last foot wouldn't drown me.

But the person standing in the water knows that five feet is safe. The person putting in the last foot knows six feet is unsafe. He knows there are already five feet. He is the one adding the marginal amount of water that turns a harmless pool into a deathtrap. There is no way you can blame the first foot for the damage caused by the last foot.

An MRI comparison of our two brains thinking about this might be very interesting...

|4.12.07 @ 1:12PM|#

After years of seeing Reason writers misrepresent the state of the science, I'm Shocked, I say, Shocked to still see so many commenters here clinging so desperately to the idea that the wrong guys to believe are the scientists and that we should rather believe the same exact shills who made such a good living throwing up chaff for so long.

Dave W.|4.12.07 @ 1:18PM|#

How exactly does the US get China to stop its one billion people from raising their standard of living to US or Europe's standards without dramatically increasing their CO2 outputs? That is not sarcasm, I really want to know what you think.

the US, Europe and Japan get together and tell China:

- if your emissions are down to level x1, then we trade with you in the unrestricted manner you have come to enjoy.

- if you emissions are only down to level x2, then we will only allow trade up to a level of y2 Euros in the aggregate.

- if you emissions are only down to level x3, then we will only allow trade up to a level of y3 Euros in the aggregate.

.
.
.
- if you emissions go up to level x99, then we will ban trade with you.

where x1

|4.12.07 @ 1:18PM|#

Imperialist,

"How exactly does the US get China to stop its one billion people from raising their standard of living to US or Europe's standards without dramatically increasing their CO2 outputs?"

They don't "get China to stop" raising their standard of living. They get China to agree to use different methods to raise their standard of living. In exchange, we (both) invest in the tools necessary to achieve this - the development of new technologies and the proliferation of less destructive practices using existing technology.

The old Pollution = Population x Wealth x Technology equation is obsolete. The green left has realized this for a decade or more.

Dave W.|4.12.07 @ 1:20PM|#

How exactly does the US get China to stop its one billion people from raising their standard of living to US or Europe's standards without dramatically increasing their CO2 outputs? That is not sarcasm, I really want to know what you think.

the US, Europe and Japan get together and tell China:

- if your emissions are down to level x1, then we trade with you in the unrestricted manner you have come to enjoy.

- if you emissions are only down to level x2, then we will only allow trade up to a level of y2 Euros in the aggregate.

- if you emissions are only down to level x3, then we will only allow trade up to a level of y3 Euros in the aggregate.

.
.
.
- if you emissions go up to level x99, then we will ban trade with you.

where x1 < x2 < x3. . .< x99, and y2 > y3 > . . .0.

Then tell China that they will effectively decide their trade level by the level of emissions. No trade war, just a progressive schedule with many choices for them coal burning Chinese to choose between.

If trade rights with China are limited because of its emission levels, then China trading rights can be auctioned off by the governments of US, Japan, Europe (and anyone else who plays along).

Problem solved.

(sorry about multiple post -- trouble with > sign)

|4.12.07 @ 1:29PM|#

I'm Shocked, Shocked that some of the same people who accused their opponents of cherry picking data to make a case for no action are now cherry picking the upper edge of a very wide error margin while suggesting that "THIS is what scientists say."

|4.12.07 @ 1:29PM|#

Dave W.,

Rather than your progressive schedule of emissions and trade, how about China accounting for all CO2 emitted during the production of every individual thing they export, and the rest of the world applying a CO2 emissions tariff to those exports that have not yet been subject to the full globally harmonized CO2 tax.

I'm not arguing that this is necessarily workable, though it is no less workable than your suggestion. But it does hew more closely to the spirit of the original article: minimize government interference and maximize market incentive.

But oh how I hate Pigouvian taxes. Say that China accounts for and collects tax for every pound of CO2 emissions. Under Pigouvian theory, China gets to spend the revenues as it wishes; the tax already served its purpose as an incentive. Now say that China chooses to spend the revenues as a tax rebate, exactly proportional to the carbon tax collected, exactly to those who paid the tax.

Carbon tax collected. Carbon tax spent.

Problem solved.

|4.12.07 @ 1:33PM|#

Mike P,

Our "wealthier descendants" won't be so wealthy if global warming continues unabated.

You're drawing a false distinction between the first foot of water and the last foot. If our descendants emit "the last ton" of CO2, it won't be because they decided it would be really kewl to do so, but becasue they (like us) have inherited a system in which their continued existence and prosperity is dependent on a carbon-intensive lifestyle and economy.

The practices and technology that have raised CO2 to modern levels aren't simply going to stop, they're going to expand, and emit ever-more carbon. If we don't change them, the result will not be merely the carbon we are emmitting today, but the higher levels of carbon emitted by a wealthier, larger population in the future.

The guy dumping the last foot of water in the pool isn't commitng a novel act. If this metaphor is to be accurate, he must dump that water in because the first foot was dumped in, and nothing was done to make it possible for him to avoid adding the last foot.

Dave W.|4.12.07 @ 1:34PM|#

Rather than your progressive schedule of emissions and trade, how about China accounting for all CO2 emitted during the production of every individual thing they export, and the rest of the world applying a CO2 emissions tariff to those exports that have not yet been subject to the full globally harmonized CO2 tax.

That probably is a better plan. Both our plans are better than Kyoto.

I wish HnR and Al Gore would be generating this kind of idea "above the fold" instead of foisting all the heavy intellectual lifting on folks like you and me, MikeP.

C'mon Steve Chapman. Steve-O! the Steve-meister! You can do it! Think, my man, think! Think hard!

|4.12.07 @ 1:36PM|#

The old Pollution = Population x Wealth x Technology equation is obsolete.

Care to explain this more fully? What is the new equation?

|4.12.07 @ 1:38PM|#

Mike P,

Subsidizing carbon-intensive production would tend to increase the amount of CO2 produced. Agreed.

The point I'm getting from this is that the revenues collected by a carbon tax shouldn't be used to subsidize the operations of carbon-intensive industries. OK. That's fairly obvious.

Am I missing something?

|4.12.07 @ 1:44PM|#

Imperialist,

Old-fashioned thinking assumed that advances in technology were always more polluting than the old method. For the first century and a half of industrial history, this held up pretty well.

But not anymore. Natural gas plants are cleaner than old-fashioned coal plants. Priuses are cleaner than Suburbans.

Not to mention, greater wealth can (not "will," "can") be used to implement cleaner practices. A factory can only afford scrubbers once it is making a certain amount of money.

The new thinking is that there are choices to make in regards to how wealth is spent and what technologies are used, which can have the effect of reducing pollution.

|4.12.07 @ 1:47PM|#

joe,

I was being half facetious. But the larger point is that this globally harmonized carbon tax is going to be collected and spent by various governments. Some governments are going to find direct or indirect ways to maximize their own wealth, intentionally or unintentionally subsidizing further carbon production.

Some governments are going to be run by Robert Mugabe.

Requiring Robert Mugabe to collect a tax is somewhat stomach-churning. Pressuring or invading his country because he refuses to collect the tax is even worse...

|4.12.07 @ 1:47PM|#

How can anyone believe that a government that created the IRS laws are going to "solve" global warming? C'mon, get real!!! The incentives are political, 3 trillion US dollars at stake. Where is Stossel now? Gimme a break.

|4.12.07 @ 1:58PM|#

Another point about the carbon tax.

Too much of this discussion is in terms of transportation (not that transportation isn't an huge piece of the picture).

The largest source of energy consumption in the US goes towards heating and cooling buildings, and is mostly unnecessary.

Current building technologies can reduce this source of energy consumption dramatically. In many climates you can get of the need for a heater/air conditioner completely. The up front costs are greater (although smaller than you would think), but pay for themselves quickly in energy savings.

Part of the problem is getting people to take this long-term savings into account when they build. How to structure a carbon tax so that it encourages smarter up front investment is the challenge, as I see it.

Here is an example of how to do it using 20 year old technology...

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid379.php

|4.12.07 @ 2:00PM|#

Mike P,

"Some governments are going to find direct or indirect ways to maximize their own wealth, intentionally or unintentionally subsidizing further carbon production."

Nice assumption there, that wealth = (and will always =) greater carbon emissions. What about whale oil? Aren't you afraid that governments will use their carbon taxes to subsidize industries that burn whale oil?

|4.12.07 @ 2:01PM|#

"After years of seeing Reason writers misrepresent the state of the science, I'm Shocked, I say, Shocked to still see so many commenters here clinging so desperately to the idea that the wrong guys to believe are the scientists and that we should rather believe the same exact shills who made such a good living throwing up chaff for so long."

But not all climate scientists are in agreement that CO2 is significantly driving climate, let alone man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. Some scientists believe it is the sun that is driving climate and temperature. Astrophysist Willie Soon did a graph that shows Actic temperatures going back to 1880 which coincides with the sun's activities and not with the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

|4.12.07 @ 2:02PM|#

The new thinking is that there are choices to make in regards to how wealth is spent and what technologies are used, which can have the effect of reducing pollution.

I understand all that. But I have been to China and seen their current state of affairs. Even the best technology available is going to produce a dramatic increase in CO2 product in aggregate long before China raises its standards equal to those in the backwaters of Europe.

The question is not should we try to halt global warming. It is how can we limit the damage as China and India modernize.

|4.12.07 @ 2:07PM|#

"They don't "get China to stop" raising their standard of living. They get China to agree to use different methods to raise their standard of living. In exchange, we (both) invest in the tools necessary to achieve this - the development of new technologies and the proliferation of less destructive practices using existing technology."

"The old Pollution = Population x Wealth x Technology equation is obsolete. The green left has realized this for a decade or more."

One thing the green left hasn't come to realize is that no other form of energy than fossil fuel with the exception of nuclear for electrical generation will produce the standard of living that we are used to.

|4.12.07 @ 2:08PM|#

Our "wealthier descendants" won't be so wealthy if global warming continues unabated.

They also won't be so wealthy if today's governments overreact to global warming and slow the growth of economies as a result.

The guy dumping the last foot of water in the pool isn't commitng a novel act. If this metaphor is to be accurate, he must dump that water in because the first foot was dumped in, and nothing was done to make it possible for him to avoid adding the last foot.

No. Each new ton of CO2 adds a certain risk of a certain level of damage, i.e., a marginal economic cost. Each new ton of CO2 adds a certain marginal economic benefit, or it wouldn't have been generated.

The carbon tax is designed so the emitter getting the benefit of the production pays the cost of the damage. If the marginal cost is greater than the marginal benefit, the emitter will either change his process or terminate his production.

The marginal damage due to new CO2 emission will be greater in the middle of this century than at the beginning. Due to improvements in production and leveraging of higher wealth, the marginal benefit will likely be greater as well. Thus the optimal carbon tax -- that tax whose costs to the economy are less than the costs of the environmental damage prevented by it -- will rise as the years pass.

|4.12.07 @ 2:09PM|#

Aren't you afraid that governments will use their carbon taxes to subsidize industries that burn whale oil?

No. Whale oil is more expensive than coal.

|4.12.07 @ 2:18PM|#

Rattlesnake Jake,

In the 1400s, wealth was as closely tied to tilled acreage as it is tied to energy use today.

Imperialist,

"Even the best technology available is going to produce a dramatic increase in CO2 product in aggregate long before China raises its standards equal to those in the backwaters of Europe."

TODAY. Using TODAY'S technology and practices. That's rather the point here - we need new and better technologies and practices.

All of this hand-wringing about environmental protection being a plot to keep China poor ignores a rather important point - the Chinese themselves are eager to move to cleaner operations. They're leading the world in green building, not because they want to sacrifice their well-being, but because they themselves recognize that it is essential to their well-being.

|4.12.07 @ 2:26PM|#

"I wish HnR and Al Gore would be generating this kind of idea "above the fold" instead of foisting all the heavy intellectual lifting on folks like you and me, MikeP."

Al Gore isn't interested in any solutions that don't require new massive governmental intervention.

|4.12.07 @ 2:33PM|#

TODAY. Using TODAY'S technology and practices. That's rather the point here - we need new and better technologies and practices.

Unless you work in some secret lab where miracles are being made, there are no technologies coming in the near future that will stop the problem. They can most certainly reduce the problem to much smaller problem than using even 1990s technology, but there is no magic bullet coming that I know of.

All of this hand-wringing about environmental protection being a plot to keep China poor ignores a rather important point - the Chinese themselves are eager to move to cleaner operations.

I have been to Moscow many times. Russia is the world's largest third-world country. It is paradise compared to Guanzhou (china's second largest city). My co-worker has been to both Guanzhou and Mumbai. Guanzhou is paradize-squared compared to Mumbai.

Even if the Chinese and Indians are meticulous in their green practices, their production of CO2 is going to swamp any reductions that the US can realistically achieve without destroying the US economy.

|4.12.07 @ 2:35PM|#

"In the 1400s, wealth was as closely tied to tilled acreage as it is tied to energy use today."

The problem is that no other form of energy is as cheap or efficient as fossil fuel is for vehicle transportation. No other form of energy in existance can generate as much energy as fossil fuel can for vehicle transportation.

uncle sam|4.12.07 @ 2:35PM|#

Does anyone have any idea how much CO2 is released in order to support the government and all its activities: bureaucracies, subsidies, war-making, etc.?
(Remembering that even a government accounting agendy has claimed that half of the cost of government is pure waste.)

I thought not.

Dave W.|4.12.07 @ 2:41PM|#

Al Gore isn't interested in any solutions that don't require new massive governmental intervention.

Yup, and Steven Chapman and the HnR crew are not interested in any solution that require considerable economic sacrifice in the investor class. That was why I mention both buddy Al and Steve-O. they write / talk about this stuff with ideological blinders on. It should be me and Mikey-P above the fold and on the silver screen, cause we don't.

|4.12.07 @ 2:42PM|#

Yeah, I only wish there was some mechanism whereby countries could agree to behave in certain ways, in exchange for other countries doing the same.

The problem, joe, is that countries either (a) won't agree to the kinds of things necessary to drastically reduce carbon output or (b) won't follow through on their commitments in the absence of an enforcement mechanism.

That enforcement mechanism boils down to either (a) a Global SuperState or (b) a trade war.

They don't "get China to stop" raising their standard of living. They get China to agree to use different methods to raise their standard of living.

Those different ways will be more expensive and/or less effective at raising the standard of living. Otherwise China would be adopting them without our "getting" them to do so. Your answers begs the question.

[China is] leading the world in green building

Boy, there's a statement that begs for a link. I thought they were leading the world in building new coal-fired power plants.

If being green were the cheapest and easiest way to get rich, we wouldn't have to worry about taxes and treaties and trade wars to get there, would we? Well, its not - being green means making sacrifices, and those aren't sacrifices that people will make willingly, which is why there is no way to get there without force.

Be honest about this, greensters, and quit pretending that people are putting CO2 into the air for the pure spite of it.

|4.12.07 @ 2:43PM|#

"What is it about global warming issues that tends to make people really nasty to each other?"

The fact that it's based on faith like religion. People fight over issues in which they can't prove.

|4.12.07 @ 2:43PM|#

What about people?! People are ultimately responsible for using energy, and therefore for emitting too much carbon dioxide. The population of the world continues to grow at a staggering rate, and what are we going to do about it?! We have to do something, don't we?!

We should only allow people to have one child, we should establish a maximum age for living, and castrating some others wouldn't be such a bad solution either. We should reward those who use less energy with credits, allowing them to live longer before voluntary suicide, and if they show the ability to significantly reduce their energy usage, maybe even have 2 children!

|4.12.07 @ 2:49PM|#

Nice assumption there, that wealth = (and will always =) greater carbon emissions.

If wealth generation is not related to greater carbon emissions, then all this talk of a carbon tax is pretty moot.

Yes, there will be realms of wealth production where alternative energy sources are superior to carbon. Yes, there will be more of these realms the higher the tax on CO2 is.

But if you outright say that there are cheaper ways to generate wealth than burning carbon, then why worry about anthropogenic CO2 at all? The market will discover and exploit these cheaper means of production all by itself, thank you.

|4.12.07 @ 3:00PM|#

"It should be me and Mikey-P above the fold and on the silver screen, cause we don't."

Heh. Hehheh. Hee.

|4.12.07 @ 3:02PM|#

Mike P makes an excellent point from the point of view of someone who studies economics.

The trick is of course to make people realize the actual costs of their consumption, which subsidies (such as those on the Oil industry) fail to allow. Ken (the very first post) and some of ya'll keep referring to the current situation as being caused by the market, when in reality, the current situation is a result of regulation and subsidization. If we didn't subsidize oil and roads, do you think people would drive all over the place if they had to pay through the ass for gas and had to pay out of pocket to use roads (albeit, it wouldn't be coming out of their taxes)? If we didn't subsidize roads and oil, do you think people would choose to spend their money living in the middle of f'ing nowhere, or would they live someplace where it wouldn't cost them as much to get to the store/work/school, etc. With such an increase in population density, energy consumption per person would drop, ambient heating costs would reduce significantly, infrastructure costs would reduce drastically… I mean how much brain power does it take to see that subsidies are really the only thing that need to change in order to improve quality of life, freedom from over-taxation, and the environment?

|4.12.07 @ 3:08PM|#

"This isn't about charging anyone with anything. This is about solving the problem."

A problem that hasn't been proven to exist.

|4.12.07 @ 3:21PM|#

It should be me and Mikey-P above the fold and on the silver screen, cause we don't.

I do not actually advocate carbon taxes or tariffs. I do however accept that they may be the least bad result we can expect from the politically charged atmosphere that the global warming debate has become.

Nonetheless, I find that the meager economic benefit due to the optimal carbon tax, along with the meager decrease in warming resulting from that tax, make giving governments -- not only the US government, which is sadly one of the best governments out there, but every government -- the power to collect and spend this tax a far more costly and risky proposition than simply dealing with global warming.

In the twentieth century governments killed outright upwards of a hundred million people. The damages caused by global warming are peanuts compared to that. Addressing global warming in ways that hinder economic growth and global interdependence while constructing new strategic and trade blocks merely to try to deal with carbon emissions would be a serious disaster.

|4.12.07 @ 3:22PM|#

The trick is of course to make people realize the actual costs of their consumption, which subsidies (such as those on the Oil industry) fail to allow.

Whenever people start talking about charging back for "externalities", I always wonder if they are planning to charge back for both the externalized costs and benefits of a given behavior, or only the costs.

|4.12.07 @ 3:28PM|#

"being green means making sacrifices, and those aren't sacrifices that people will make willingly, which is why there is no way to get there without force."

RC, look at this company
http://www.interfaceinc.com/

They have increased their profits by adopting green practices. They are not alone. Many green practices are worth doing just for the sake of increasing profits.

"quit pretending that people are putting CO2 into the air for the pure spite of it."

Knowledge is a big hurdle.
If people don't know that there is a better, more profitable, and greener way to do things, they will just keep doing things they way they do it now.

Be honest and quit pretending environmentalists are just acting out of spite.

People don't always do the thing that is in their best interest because they don't know how.

If we go back to the logic of a carbon tax, it is supposed to give them an incentive to learn about the existing technology that will go a long way towards solving this problem...

|4.12.07 @ 3:29PM|#

and to find newer, better ways to do things in the future.

|4.12.07 @ 3:40PM|#

"Whenever people start talking about charging back for "externalities", I always wonder if they are planning to charge back for both the externalized costs and benefits of a given behavior, or only the costs."

I'm not talking exactly about "charging back" (I think I know what you mean with this phrase), simply not taking peoples money and forcing them to make economic decisions based on false premises. For example, if I decide to take the train to DC, I'm doing so paying both for the train ticket AND for the roads and oil I'm not using. It's a false choice. Why force people to make irrational choices when they're perfectly capable of making rational decisions without the government's help? Your implication of "charging back" benefits is exactly what leads to subsidies. It's the idea that something benefits us, so we should pay more for it in our taxes so we don't have to pay so much for it at the vending location.

PS: Can someone explain to me how to get things to appear in italics?

|4.12.07 @ 3:43PM|#

Lemme know when the carbon tax advocates agree to create it via a Constitutional Amendment which also explicitly prohibits income and payroll taxes. I'll be willing to negotiate any other details at that point.

Gahan|4.12.07 @ 3:44PM|#

"If you are standing comfortably in five feet of water, and someone pours in a sixth foot that goes over your head, are you going to charge the person who puts in the first five feet with murder?"

Presumably not, since you'd be dead.

|4.12.07 @ 3:46PM|#

Can someone explain to me how to get things to appear in italics?

<em>This is in italics</em> but this isn't.

|4.12.07 @ 3:50PM|#

like this?

VikingMoose|4.12.07 @ 4:03PM|#

Reinmoose:

hier

und!

ici

|4.12.07 @ 4:10PM|#

oooooooooooooooo

merci bien, VikingMoose! (to whom I am of no relation)

das ist sehr informativ!

|4.12.07 @ 4:11PM|#

Imperialist,

"magic bullet" is your term, not mine. I'm talking about technological progress in that direction, not the magical energy machine being sold in Sears next Wednesday.

"Even if the Chinese and Indians are meticulous in their green practices, their production of CO2 is going to swamp any reductions that the US can realistically achieve without destroying the US economy."

1. That wasn't my point. I was just refuting the assertion that environmental progress must necessarily mean strangling growth in China. That certainly isn't how the Chinese.

2. For a time, perhaps. The way technological advancement works is that small progress opens the door for greater progress. No one is talking about this problem going away tomorrow.

|4.12.07 @ 4:13PM|#

Rattlesnake Jake,

"The problem is that no other form of energy is as cheap or efficient as fossil fuel is for vehicle transportation." You counting externalities in that measurement? Probably not.

How efficient is a product that floods millions of people out of their homes?

VM|4.12.07 @ 4:16PM|#

freilich...

*ambles off

|4.12.07 @ 4:19PM|#

RC Dean,

I think you underestimate the interest the rest of world has in seeing us reduce our contribution to the problem. We account for fully 1/4 of greenhouse emissions. Reducing that is a serious carrot we can offer.

"Those different ways will be more expensive and/or less effective at raising the standard of living." Mmm-hmm. And if the government bans leaded gasoline, we'll all be walking. Remember when the Clean Air Act was going to shut down our economy? Good times.

"Boy, there's a statement that begs for a link." Great idea. Why don't you google "China Green Roofs," for example, and let us know what you find. I already know the answer, but a lot of people would find it quite educational.

"I thought they were leading the world in building new coal-fired power plants."

Actually, they're doing both - building hightly energy-efficient, modern buildings AND increasing their coal-based energy generation.

|4.12.07 @ 4:22PM|#

Let's take a simple thought experiment:

A common sight on the streets of Guanzhou is a family of three out for a little dive on a motorcycle smaller than a typical moped here in the US. Father drives, mother hangs off the back end, toddle is stuffed between the two.

Let's now give this family a sub-compact car, nothing extravagent, just enough space for three small chinese people to sit. I don't care if it is gasoline-only or a hybrid.

This car will have maybe 10 times the mass as the motorcyle (maybe 8, maybe 12, who cares). This means:

We need to extract 10 times the natural resources from the ground.

We need energy to extract the resources, refine them so we can use them, and then to fabricate the car.

Now the car is quite efficient, so it won't take 10 times the gasoline, probably only 3 or 4 times.

But wait, it takes 10 times more space on the street, so we need to build more roads. We need more space to park the car when it is not in use. We also need 3 or 4 times more oil, more refineries, more gas stations, etc.

So tell me joe, how are we going to give this chinese family a car so they don't have to ride a motorcycle in the rain while only marginally increasing their CO2 output over their current production?

Tell me how to do this without a magic bullet?

Convince me. Please.

|4.12.07 @ 4:22PM|#

"How efficient is a product that floods millions of people out of their homes?"

As I've said, it has not been proven that that is going to happen. Or like the neoconservatives on foreign policy, do you believe in preemption? We should not destroy our economy on an unproven assumption.

|4.12.07 @ 4:23PM|#

Mike P,

"The market will discover and exploit these cheaper means of production all by itself, thank you."

Yes, it will - when the incentive structure is brought into line with the actual costs of different energy technologies. Hence, the carbon tax.

Or do you have some better idea for internalizing the damage done to the commons? If you do, just shout it out. We're listening.

|4.12.07 @ 4:26PM|#

"I think you underestimate the interest the rest of world has in seeing us reduce our contribution to the problem."

The Euopeans want us to reduce our contribution of CO2 so we can damage our economy like they have theirs.

|4.12.07 @ 4:27PM|#

RC,

"quit pretending that people are putting CO2 into the air for the pure spite of it."

Quit pretending you don't know what commons and externalities are.

|4.12.07 @ 4:29PM|#

Imperialist,

"Now the car is quite efficient, so it won't take 10 times the gasoline, probably only 3 or 4 times."

Gaah, in the future, computers will be twice as powerful, and ten times as large.

|4.12.07 @ 4:30PM|#

Jake, your ignorance of the science and your ideological bias make conversing with you not worth my time.

|4.12.07 @ 4:30PM|#

"Remember when the Clean Air Act was going to shut down our economy?"

Now you're comparing apples and oranges, joe. There is a big economic difference in removing lead from gasoline and significantly reducing CO2 from the atmosphere. Lead also actually caused pollution whereas the verdict is still out on CO2.

|4.12.07 @ 4:33PM|#

"Jake, your ignorance of the science and your ideological bias make conversing with you not worth my time."

As if you're not ignorant of the science and don't have an ideological bias! Glass houses!

|4.12.07 @ 4:34PM|#

"Now the car is quite efficient, so it won't take 10 times the gasoline, probably only 3 or 4 times."

3 or 4 times as much as the motorcycle that it replaced.

I was guessing that a really small motorcycle would get 100+ mpg today and the small subcompacts would easily do 25 to 30 or better in stop and go traffic.

Did this elude you?

Or were you being obtuse on purpose?

|4.12.07 @ 4:39PM|#

So joe, are you afraid to address the whole thought experiment? Or do you really believe that snarky comments count as reasoned debate?

|4.12.07 @ 4:43PM|#

Or do you have some better idea for internalizing the damage done to the commons?

Do you have some better idea for internalizing the damage done to humanity by overly aggressive government action?

I do not mind the government's dealing with real honest-to-goodness public goods issues. But the costs of the government action must not exceed the costs of the externalities themselves.

The best guess for the appropriate level of a carbon tax is modest indeed. Yet the governments of the world that are acting on global warming are choosing Kyoto-like CO2 emissions targets rather than attempting to internalize the costs as a tax. Talk to them about costs to the commons and appropriate pricing of carbon emissions. Maybe they'll listen to you.

uncle sam|4.12.07 @ 5:14PM|#

Be honest and quit pretending environmentalists are just acting out of spite.

Except for the watermelons, of course.

|4.12.07 @ 5:29PM|#

Good evening, gents.

|4.12.07 @ 5:34PM|#

Joe:
Once again you misstate the issue by saying "We account for fully 1/4 of greenhouse emissions".
What you should say is that we account for ¼ of CO2 emissions. Since CO2 accounts for approximately 3.618% of all "Greenhouse" gasses ( most being water vapor), and since only 3.225% of atmospheric CO2 is considered man-made, you should state the U.S is responsible for
(3.618% x 3.225% x ¼) or 0.0293% of the theoretical greenhouse effect. Kinda puts things in perspective.

IT'S NOT THE CO2 STUPID!!

uncle sam|4.12.07 @ 5:38PM|#

IT'S NOT THE CO2 STUPID!!
Snark!

Yes, climatologist still need to demonstrate some model for explaining average atmospheric water content and average cloud cover.

|4.12.07 @ 5:55PM|#

ALfromALberta

You do the maths real good.

Now look up the concept of a baseline rate and explain the importance of your numbers.

My father the math Ph.d. computer modeling scientiest was very skeptical of the climate models for years.

He now feels very comfortable with them and their attributions regarding man's role in the affair. Convergent sources of data are pretty powerful in scientific inference.

|4.12.07 @ 6:01PM|#

AlfromA

"Humankind is releasing CO2 at a rate of about 7 Gton C per year from fossil fuel combustion, with a further 2 Gton C per year from deforestation. Because the atmospheric CO2 concentration is higher than normal, the natural world is absorbing CO2 at a rate of about 2 or 2.5 Gton C per year into the land biosphere and into the oceans, for a total of about 5 Gton C per year. The CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is rising because of the 4 Gton C imbalance. If we were to cut emissions by about half, from a total of 9 down to about 4 Gton C per year, the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere would stop rising for awhile."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/how-much-co2-emission-is-too-much/

Just like economists worry about the 1/4 percent interest rate hike, the small numbers can matter in large systems.

|4.12.07 @ 6:10PM|#

I like the phrase "Magical Mystical Markets" especially in relation to Chapman's work, and indeed most libertarian pundits (note, not anarchists, are there anarchists pundits or think thanks?). It mocks the instant "government bad, markets good" knee jerk reaction one finds in those pundits. Of course, as a I said, without a government to provide enforcement of contracts, standardized weights and measures, infrastructure, policing, enforcement of tort law, etc. (thats quite a list) there is no market beyond hunter gatherer societies.
As to SugarFree: I use the "schoolyard told ya so" argument to point out that since most libertarians allowed their ideology to over-ride their common sense on an issue like global warming, why now should we trust that they will reason correctly about what is the best measure to combat a dire problem that unil recently most vehemently denied existing?
Torres-I think you bring up a classic false dilemma. Notice my analogy, it already contains the answer you seek: if you had a goose that literally laid golden eggs, but everytime it did so it greatly soiled your yard, then your only choices are not to kill the goose or live in filfth. You could try to find the right balance that best promotes prosperity, choice AND livable conditions. Of course some ground will be sacrificed both ways. Despite my mockery, I believe markets are in general good things. I just don't think that I have some mystical duty to defend them "though the heavens fall." Such sensibility would be good for libertarians in general. It's like a friend once told me after I confessed that for the umpteenth time my attempt to go vegetarian had failed. He said, why be a 'vegetarian?' Why not just a person who is trying to eat less meat?

|4.12.07 @ 6:13PM|#

US,

"Except for the watermelons, of course."

We call 'em Sandias in NM.

= green on the outside/red on the inside...

Red = soviet style socialist?
or
Red= republican?

Either way, they are a sweet treat on a hot summer day, but many find the rinds too bitter to swallow.

|4.12.07 @ 6:16PM|#

I personally love how "red" has gone from meaning "soviet style socialist" to "republican."

The question is, did the connotation change?

Paternalistic authority worship = red?

|4.12.07 @ 6:19PM|#

We call 'em Sandias in NM.

I went to Sandia High School, and I don't remember calling watermelons sandias.

...though doing so would be as American as manzano pie.

uncle sam|4.12.07 @ 6:40PM|#

To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C (3). Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C (3).

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

|4.12.07 @ 7:12PM|#

To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; ...

And if that is 150 Gt C more than it contained in 1750, does that say something about the inevitable sum of repeated positive contributions of a few Gt C per year?

Nonetheless, the impact that humanity has had on atmospheric CO2 is rather academic. Regardless of the reason for increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, if it is in the end harmful to humanity, we should want to address it.

After all, if an asteroid were going to hammer the planet, we wouldn't say, "It's not our fault: We don't need to do anything about it."

|4.12.07 @ 7:28PM|#

MikeP,

What year did you graduate?

|4.12.07 @ 7:42PM|#

1983

|4.12.07 @ 7:43PM|#

Uncle Sam,

That is a nifty study, but concluding that increased CO2 is beneficial is not quite accurate...

"But the most critical factor seems to have been the oceans. Heating makes it harder for water to absorb oxygen from the atmosphere; thus, if ancient volcanism raised CO2 and lowered the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, and global warming made it more difficult for the remaining oxygen to penetrate the oceans, conditions would have become amenable for the deep-sea anaerobic bacteria to generate massive upwellings of H2S. Oxygen-breathing ocean life would have been hit first and hardest, whereas the photosynthetic green and purple H2S-consuming bacteria would have been able to thrive at the surface of the anoxic ocean. As the H2S gas choked creatures on land and eroded the planet's protective shield, virtually no form of life on the earth was safe.

Kump's hypothesis of planetary killing provides a link between marine and terrestrial extinctions at the end of the Permian and explains how volcanism and increased CO2 could have triggered both. It also resolves strange findings of sulfur at all end Permian sites. A poisoned ocean and atmosphere would account for the very slow recovery of life after that mass extinction as well.

Finally, this proposed sequence of events pertains not only to the end of the Permian. A minor extinction at the end of the Paleocene epoch 54 million years ago was already--presciently--attributed to an interval of oceanic anoxia somehow triggered by short-term global warming. Biomarkers and geologic evidence of anoxic oceans suggest that is also what may have occurred at the end Triassic, middle Cretaceous and late Devonian, making such extreme greenhouse-effect extinctions possibly a recurring phenomenon in the earth's history.

Most troubling, however, is the question of whether our species has anything to fear from this mechanism in the future: If it happened before, could it happen again? Although estimates of the rates at which carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere during each of the ancient extinctions are still uncertain, the ultimate levels at which the mass deaths took place are known. The so-called thermal extinction at the end of the Paleocene began when atmospheric CO2 was just under 1,000 parts per million (ppm). At the end of the Triassic, CO2 was just above 1,000 ppm. Today with CO2 around 385 ppm, it seems we are still safe. But with atmospheric carbon climbing at an annual rate of 2 ppm and expected to accelerate to 3 ppm, levels could approach 900 ppm by the end of the next century, and conditions that bring about the beginnings of ocean anoxia may be in place. How soon after that could there be a new greenhouse extinction? That is something our society should never find out. "

From Scientific American On-line October 2006

|4.12.07 @ 7:51PM|#

Just curious. Are there many folks here who are opposed to a total tax neutral or nealy neutral imposition of a carbon tax?

Even if you think that true believers want to sack the economy (unlikely) or are so foolish they will do so by accident (more likely), that particular policy shouldn't be something we can't live with. joe gets a little incentive here, we get very marginal pain and probably some benefit from not taxing productivity.

Couldn't we meet somewhere on this idea?

|4.12.07 @ 7:54PM|#

MikeP,

Me too.

The class that wasn't there is what I believe they called us (don't remember I was rarely there and usually stoned).

Ahhh those were the days....

|4.12.07 @ 8:33PM|#

JasonL,

If a carbon tax is going to work it needs to be paired with reductions in tax on labor and income. Even Al Gore agrees to that.

Mike Laursen|4.12.07 @ 9:15PM|#

Just curious. Are there many folks here who are opposed to a total tax neutral or nealy neutral imposition of a carbon tax?

If it were truly a neutral trade, a new carbon tax replacing existing labor and income taxes, I wouldn't be opposed. Just about any type of tax is better than the income tax. I wouldn't expect it to do much to stop global climate change, though.

In a few years, the carbon tax would become established as another stream of annual revenue, funding ongoing programs and bureaucracies. The government would start setting the carbon tax levels to maximize that revenue stream, with greenhouse gas emissions as a secondary consideration. I predict you'll see politicians on TV arguing that we'll just have to live with global warming if we care about the poor.

And, of course, they'll insert all kinds of exceptions into the tax code for the military, connected corporations, and other special interest groups.

|4.13.07 @ 1:25AM|#

Dave W.,

Then tell China that they will effectively decide their trade level by the level of emissions.

No matter how you slice this argument of yours, we end up slamming our own economy big time with this kind of trade war. Which really is what you're proposing, however else you choose to name it.

JasonL,

My position: ....might stave off deep eco loonies.

How long until you have to stave off The Rapture is Near Christians too?

There is always someone saying The End is Near.


Herb, you ruined the whole thread and nobody even noticed.

uncle sam|4.13.07 @ 2:21AM|#

Neu Mejican

I remember reading about that. The question arises as to whether CO2 increases preceded temp increases or followed as some research has indicated. Also, we still need to learn about the mechanism that determines average cloud cover over time. Do we even have accurate numbers for this?

|4.13.07 @ 9:03AM|#

Ken has it right.

Timing is of the essence when offering alternatives. You can make the best arguments in teh world as to why the proposed solutions would be too expensive, too disruptive, too invasive, and that there are better ways ad they will ask you.

"Weren't you the one who denied that we had a problem at all?"

"Weren't you the one who called us names andm put in doubt our motives and our integrity for saying that we had a problem?"

"Weren't you the one who insisted that to say that there was a problem showed a moral failing?"

"So why should we listen to someone who has made inaccurate predictions and cast aspersions on the ones who made accurate ones?"

"If the better plan that you offere was so good, what kept you from offering it years ago, instead of insisting that we had no problem?"

In this world you can only convince people with your arguments as long as you have credibility, the moment you lose that, you might say "2+2 = 4" and they will want independent verification.

In argument, as in comedy, timing is everything.

Dave W.|4.13.07 @ 9:48AM|#

I do not actually advocate carbon taxes or tariffs. I do however accept that they may be the least bad result we can expect from the politically charged atmosphere that the global warming debate has become.

Well, this objection would seem to lead us back to my proposal, minus the auctions.

I knew this discussion was leading somewheres good. Welcome aboard the Dave W. train, MikeP!

|4.13.07 @ 10:12AM|#

Good post, Alfrom. In other words, man's input of 3 thousanths of 1% is what people are fretting about, causing a 20 foot rise in sea level.

|4.13.07 @ 10:20AM|#

Neu Mejican, you sound pretty smart, but how do you explain astrophysist Willie Soon's graph that dates back to 1880 and shows a close correlation between the sun's activity and temperature over the years, but no such correlation with CO2 in the atmosphere.

|4.13.07 @ 10:24AM|#

"without a government to provide enforcement of contracts, standardized weights and measures, infrastructure, policing, enforcement of tort law, etc. (thats quite a list) there is no market beyond hunter gatherer societies."

We minarchist libertarians don't dispute any of that. You're still mistaking us with anarchists.

|4.13.07 @ 10:31AM|#

"Paternalistic authority worship = red?"

That certainly describes the blues as well.

|4.13.07 @ 10:46AM|#

"No matter how you slice this argument of yours, we end up slamming our own economy big time with this kind of trade war. Which really is what you're proposing, however else you choose to name it."

Also, when goods don't cross borders, armies will.

|4.13.07 @ 10:49AM|#

"Herb, you ruined the whole thread and nobody even noticed."

What did you mean, Ghengis?

|4.13.07 @ 11:07AM|#

"The question arises as to whether CO2 increases preceded temp increases or followed as some research has indicated."

Core data shows that temperature increases preceded CO2 increases. The warmer temperatures evaporate more CO2 from the oceans which results in more CO2 in the atmosphere.

"we still need to learn about the mechanism that determines average cloud cover over time. Do we even have accurate numbers for this?"

One mechanism for creating cooling clouds in the lower atmosphere, according to climate physicist Henrik Svensmark, is cosmic rays. When the solar system goes through areas in the galaxy with an abundance of cosmic rays, we have more of this cooling effect unless the sun is more active, which blows away more of the cosmic rays, allowing for higher average temperatures during those periods. The core data confirms this. During warmer periods, there was a higher concentration of carbon-14 and beryllium-10 with the cores showing a higher concentration of CO2 in the following periods. This is evidence that it's the sun, not your SUV. Read Henrik Svensmark's new book, "The Chilling Stars". Before we destroy our economy with unproven ideas about man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, we'd better be damned sure.

|4.13.07 @ 11:11AM|#

"So why should we listen to someone who has made inaccurate predictions and cast aspersions on the ones who made accurate ones?"

The problem is that the more accurate data agrees with those who say it's the sun, not your SUV that is driving the temperature. Refer again to Willie Soon's graphs.

|4.13.07 @ 11:40AM|#

Some sources...

The CO2 temp lag.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

On Solar/stellar forcing
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/recent-warming-but-no-trend-in-galactic-cosmic-rays/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

"The problem is that the more accurate data agrees with those who say it's the sun, not your SUV that is driving the temperature. Refer again to Willie Soon's graphs."

I am not a climatologist, but in science you need convergent data from many sources. Particularly when you are studying retrospective data of a complex system. A cherry picked data set is not the same as a systematic review of the data.

|4.13.07 @ 11:43AM|#

Rattlesnake,

"Before we destroy our economy"

Be sure you keep your skeptical edge honed for all aspects of the issue. There have been no good economic models developed. Claims like this are just statements of faith.

|4.13.07 @ 12:02PM|#

Imperialist,

I'm disappointed that you didn't get my Simpson's reference.

Your assumptions about the maximum efficiency of vehicles in the next couple of decades remind me of the predictions about the growth of computing power in the 1950s and 60s.

You are extrapolating efficiency increases from historical trends and assuing linearity, as were those who predicted that we would be building super-ENIACs that fill up an entire underground cave.

|4.13.07 @ 12:06PM|#

"Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

Okay, I finished reading the petition study in detail. This gem from above demonstrates their level of rigor. It is not a scientific review,it just plays one on the intertubes.

More on the Oregon Petition here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition

After the petition appeared, the National Academy of Sciences said in news release that "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal." It also said "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

And yet the claim it is a peer reviewed article.

You've been hoodwinked.

uncle sam|4.13.07 @ 1:22PM|#

You've been hoodwinked

The purpose of my entry referring to OISM was to illustrate the relative levels of CO2 repositories, exchanges, and anthropogenic contribution, which data referred to other sources which I was not inclined to personally check out as this is only a blog for political argumentation and not a acedemic dissertation.

Facts and data should always speak for themselves and IAC, I, like everyone, hold myself and not the NAS (big science) as the ultimate judge of what to deem as credible.

Wikipedia entries often reflect the bias of the contributor (just as in traditional sources of information).

The question shall always remain about any purveyor of interpretations: Is what they claim accurate/true?

I note that proponents of AGW disaster almost always end up with ad hominem dismissal of skeptics rather than informative repsonses. That's where their credibility with me ends.

I is my awareness that many scientists are products of early government indoctrination centers, er, government education, and have, in more recent decades, been quite extensively indoctrinated with the faults of mankind and thus enter the sciences with a predisposition to blame mankind for any perceived problem.

Global Warming is verified by the temperature record, but so are many climate variations throughout geological history. The assumption that atmospheric CO2 is a substantial driver for climate change is just that.

There is almost no discussion of the major greenhouse gas and its counterbalancing form, cloud cover, probably because its effects can't be blamed on industrial economies.

|4.13.07 @ 1:37PM|#

Herb,

I meant that you're right in your comment above, nobody has proven that we really have anything serious to worry about. So what's all the noise about here?

|4.13.07 @ 1:42PM|#

Uncle Sam,
Re: Wikipedia.

True, often biased...not so sure I think the same of the NAS. The Oregon Petition authors, however, are actively dishonest.

from their website: "Be sure to read the peer reviewed scientific paper on which this petition is based."

But it isn't a peer reviewed scientific paper.

You are indeed the arbitor of your own conclusions.

"I note that proponents of AGW disaster almost always end up with ad hominem dismissal of skeptics rather than informative repsonses."

This is not a trend I have seen.

"indoctrinated with the faults of mankind and thus enter the sciences with a predisposition to blame mankind for any perceived problem."

Okaaaayy. Unless they don't. This is just a fatuous assertion.

"The assumption that atmospheric CO2 is a substantial driver for climate change is just that."

The history of that "assumption."
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

"There is almost no discussion of the major greenhouse gas and its counterbalancing form, cloud cover, probably because its effects can't be blamed on industrial economies."

Here is a discussion including links to the actual research into the question of water vapor.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/

Remember to be skeptical of both sides of the argument. Demand evidence from both sides.

|4.13.07 @ 3:10PM|#

Good post, Uncle Sam
"I note that proponents of AGW disaster almost always end up with ad hominem dismissal of skeptics rather than informative repsonses. That's where their credibility with me ends."
And this shows them to be the real cherry-pickers. They only want to look at the data that supports them. They completely ignore the historical data or explain it away with an ad hominem dismissal as you said.

Another example where the historical and geological evidence backs up the solar theory of global warming is from the findings of Jurg Beer of the Swiss Federation Institute of Environmental Science and Technology. When he used the cosmic rays as indicators of variable moods of the Sun, peaks in the beryllium-10 production seen in Greenland ice matched carefully dated ice-rafting events rather well. He pointed out that "Our correlations are evidence that over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a distinct interval of variable and overall reduced solar output." In other words, beryllium-10 created from cosmic rays which reach the earth when there is an absense of solar surges to blow them away and therefore create the cooling clouds of the lower atmosphere correspond over the last 12,000 years with ice drifting in the North Atlantic. This is one more piece of evidence that the cherry-picking AGW people ignore.

Mike Laursen|4.13.07 @ 3:14PM|#

You'd think two guys named Neu Mejican and Rattlesnake Jake would get along better.

|4.13.07 @ 3:36PM|#

It's just a family love fued, Mike.

uncle sam|4.13.07 @ 4:22PM|#

"indoctrinated with the faults of mankind and thus enter the sciences with a predisposition to blame mankind for any perceived problem."

Okaaaayy. Unless they don't. This is just a fatuous assertion.

Unless you have personally observed such indoctrination as I have when participating in my daughter's preschool, and after reading Thomas Sowell's similar conclusion in his book Inside American Education, (a person I give a great deal of credibility to even though I do not align with him politically.) He engages in extensive research for his books.

Quark|4.13.07 @ 4:45PM|#

What I can't understand is after all the scientific evidence that completely debunks the "Man Created" Climate change theory, how can any of you so called "Reasonable" people still accept this bogus mythology? The sun drives our weather, not CO2. CO2 rises lag 800 years behind temperature rises, therefore, result of, not cause of. Correlation does not imply causation.

Of course, the climate is changing, the climate is ALWAYS changing, that is no reason to start screaming that the sky is falling. Read the actual research, don't simply swallow the opinions of those with an agenda that is anti-Capitalist and anti-Libertarian.

The planet has ben ten degrees warmer in the last thousand years than it is assumed that it will be in the next fifty. Guess what, humans are still here. No huge disasters, no terrible storms.

We need less government interference, not more. Especially as this particular President has shown how incredible incompetance at the top can lead to terrible suffering at the bottom, when we depend heavily on Federal regulation and aid.

uncle sam|4.13.07 @ 5:52PM|#

The history of that "assumption."

Regardless of the history, it is admitted by all scientists that H2O is the THE major greenhouse gas, followed by methane. CO2 is a very small proportion of all the greenhouses and the human contribution is smaller still.
It is also known that climate has changed over the eons, occasionally precipitously, without any human contribution and that there is reason to believe that CO2 follows warming (due to oeanic outgassing). The proponents of AGW have not explained the cooling in recent decades that once led to forecasts of a new ice age.

In addition to their frequent ad hominem dismissal of skeptics, they also frequently misrepresent the positions of skeptics as the AGW proponents hold that their triumvirate GW claim must be accepted in toto or you must be a denier, flake, or in the pay of corporate America.

If you don't see any ad hominem from the propenents of anthropogenic environmental disaster, you should investigate the whole Bjorn Lomborg affair and wonder why Ron Bailey must always append his postings with disclaimers, or why Pat Michaels is dismissed out of hand for his association with CATO (which receives some corporate funding...even as many environmental groups also receive corporate funding).

|4.13.07 @ 6:58PM|#

"If you don't see any ad hominem from the propenents of anthropogenic environmental disaster, you should investigate the whole Bjorn Lomborg affair and wonder why Ron Bailey must always append his postings with disclaimers, or why Pat Michaels is dismissed out of hand for his association with CATO (which receives some corporate funding...even as many environmental groups also receive corporate funding)."

I said I don't see a trend towards ad hom... meaning that when you look to those that are having the real discussions based on facts, these types of arguments are not any more prevalent coming from one side or the other. Ad hom are certainly slung around a lot in discussion on this topic, from both sides. Not so much, however, when discussing the actual science.

Conflict of interest charges are, in my view, a different animal, and are also slung around quite freely (maybe because there are real conflicts of interest for some of the players).

You yourself have indicated a willingness to claim that NAS is "big science" and therefore biased, but yet you give CATO a pass(why?) CATO has a stated, explicit agenda that would predict a bias in the very direction their conclusions lean. NAS actually would be expected to be biased in favor of more rigorous conclusions, since their reputation rests on their adherence to scientific principles. They are a very conservative organization when it comes right down to it. They don't have a dog in the race when it comes to which conclusion wins out. Their only interest, it would seem, is in demonstrating that science is a useful way to address problems in general. They win whether the science proves or disproves AGW, so their incentive for bias is to be conservative in their conclusions.

|4.13.07 @ 7:02PM|#

"You'd think two guys named Neu Mejican and Rattlesnake Jake would get along better."

Rattlesnake with papas fritas...yummm...

Rattlesnake is a large part of the diet of the roadrunner, the NM state bird.

|4.13.07 @ 7:15PM|#

In other words, beryllium-10 created from cosmic rays which reach the earth when there is an absense of solar surges to blow them away and therefore create the cooling clouds of the lower atmosphere correspond over the last 12,000 years with ice drifting in the North Atlantic. This is one more piece of evidence that the cherry-picking AGW people ignore.

Look here for an example of this issue not being ignored.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/on-veizers-celestial-climate-driver/

I find 84 citations of Beer's article in a quick lit search.

Doesn't seem to be consistent with it being ignored.

|4.13.07 @ 7:51PM|#

Having not read Pat Michaels before, I looked him up.

From his conclusion in his most recent cato opinion paper.

"adding new information to a forecast has an equal probability of changing the forecast in either a positive or a negative direction."

That is just not the case, on its face. This would only be the assumption of the null hypothesis...if the system being measured is actually trending either positive or negative, you would expect a bias in one direction.

"It would be interesting to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the recent scientific literature on climate change to see whether results are significantly biasing our view of the future into one that is almost always "worse than we thought" and rarely "not as bad as we thought."

And what would we conclude from this type of study? Would it indicate a bias of the scientists, or that the data indicate something real?

|4.13.07 @ 7:56PM|#

Neu Mejican,

I do not at all share your opinion that the National Academy of Sciences is unbiased. It is not a purely scientific community. Rather, it is an organization that makes the biggest splash by its proposals of public policy -- proposals often explicitly requested by Congress and the Administration.

The NAS is biased by its charter and very construction to be (a) pro government interests, (b) pro US interests, and (c) pro science interests.

Take, for instance, the study of, and recommendations for, American competitiveness in science and technology the NAS produced under the name "Rising Above the Gathering Storm." It is nothing but a grab-bag slew of poorly understood mercantilist economics and proposed corporate welfare for the wealthiest segments of people in the country. And that result can be completely predicted by the biases inherent in the NAS.

This is not to say that the NAS necessarily produces biased science in its climate change studies. But it is excellent evidence that, when scientific understanding gets converted to public policy, scientists -- especially government chartered scientists -- are not qualified to do it.

|4.13.07 @ 8:03PM|#

That is just not the case, on its face. This would only be the assumption of the null hypothesis...if the system being measured is actually trending either positive or negative, you would expect a bias in one direction.

No you wouldn't.

The trending up or down -- the bias -- is already included in the prior prediction. If half the predicted possible outcomes are above the trend and half are below -- as one would expect from a normal distribution and the law of large numbers generally -- the new and presumably improved prediction is as likely to move the trend lower as it is to move it higher.

To put some numbers on it, if a predicted warming is 2.9°C with a standard deviation of 0.2°C, then new data and understanding is as likely to produce a new predicted warming of less than 2.9°C as it is to produce a new predicted warming of more than 2.9°C.

|4.13.07 @ 9:22PM|#

"Government is not the solution to our problems, Government is the problem"

Let's back up a little everyone, you're all assuming Global Warming is man-made, and that we can do something about it. I'm sorry to date there is no proof of any of the ourageous claims. A consensus of some scientist does not prove anything. There are many scientist who completely disagree. And history indicates prior Global Warmings, when man-kind could not possibly have contributed. What happened to the little Ice Age they predicted in the 70's?

Looking at both side's of this argument for some time, I have found no reason to believe those who claim global warming is man-made. Show me the proof, not consensus of opinion, show me why a reasonable person should disbelieve the counter claims.

BTW, on a different subject regarding so-called science and for those who believe the world is flat still, you might want to check this site out thoroughly http://www.nealadams.com/nmu.html. If you are truly open-minded and really interested in the truth, this will give you many reasons to ponder.

This being my very first visit to reason.com, I'm a little dismayed that this article passed as being reasoned.

Best wishes to you all!

uncle sam|4.13.07 @ 9:54PM|#

There is no denying that science, in regard to public policy, has become politicized.
Mucho dinera is involved, billions, infact.

There are those foolhardy enough to believe that, while money from corporate interests is corrupting, money from the public till is not, but many of us know better.

There is nothing more corrupting of human character than politics.

uncle sam|4.13.07 @ 10:16PM|#

You yourself have indicated a willingness to claim that NAS is "big science" and therefore biased, but yet you give CATO a pass(why?) CATO has a stated, explicit agenda that would predict a bias in the very direction their conclusions lean.

Exactly, they make their bias known and expound upon defined principles, it's what you expect of them.

The ad hominem comes in where Pat Michaels credentials in climate science are negated by the fact that CATO receives corporate donations, as do many environmental groups.
His critics claim that we shouldn't believe whatever he says (that they don't like) just because CATO receives corporate donations (as do many environmental groups)...this, rather than refuting his observations with contrary data. In other words, they don't want people to hear facts which may contradict their assertions.

uncle sam|4.13.07 @ 10:28PM|#

I took the trouble to contact OISM for clarification on the paper and claims that it was not peer reviewed and the following is the reply:

It was peer reviewed and published in two journals. Also, all of the references on which it is based - given in the article - were peer reviewed. The enviros have little regard for the truth.

Art Robinson

|4.14.07 @ 12:15AM|#

"It was peer reviewed and published in two journals."

Citations for those please.

It would be very unusual for a peer reviewed journal to accept a manuscript that had been previously published in another peer reviewed journal.

Sorry, I am not buying it without the citations.

And "enviros"?
Doesn't he mean sappy-headed enviros or envirofacists ;^)

MikeP,
"To put some numbers on it, if a predicted warming is 2.9°C with a standard deviation of 0.2°C, then new data and understanding is as likely to produce a new predicted warming of less than 2.9°C as it is to produce a new predicted warming of more than 2.9°C."

Within a range let's say from 2.7 to 3.1, for sure. But you are talking about estimates. If all of your data end up being between 2.9 and 3.1, that is not an indication that you are doing something to bias the results. The data may actually be falling on the higher end of your confidence interval. That was my point, stated clumsily. PM seems to be saying something more like... you would expect just as many studies to be below 2.7 as above 3.1. If the results are within your confidence interval, you haven't found things to be "better than we predicted" or "worse than we predicted." He is saying you would expect as many studies refuting your prediction as confirming it (or that is how I read his point).

|4.14.07 @ 12:22AM|#

And MikeP,

I am not claiming the NAS has no bias, I am claiming that the biasing forces would not tend to push data on AGW in one direction or another. They get just as big a reputation boost (the source of their political power) from showing that the science works to debunk the need for change as they do for showing the need for change. It would be easy for them to take the position of the current political power center, but that center was in the deny global warming camp until fairly recently, so it would be easy to see if the NAS position changed the political position or if the political position changed their stance.

|4.14.07 @ 12:26AM|#

Mike P,

I thought about it and couldn't think of a Mike or Mike P that I new at Sandia High, but I wonder if we had the same class at some point.

Was it Mr. Rock for civics?
Ms. Harris for English?
Pasha Kaye for electronics?

uncle sam|4.14.07 @ 12:27AM|#

I had already requested the details.
Here they are:

1. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 3: 5 (1998)

2. Climate Research 13: 149-164 (1999)

uncle sam|4.14.07 @ 12:29AM|#

And "enviros"?
Doesn't he mean sappy-headed enviros or envirofacists ;^)

Well, when you are the target, you can be forgiven for exhibiting some antipathy toward the attackers.

uncle sam|4.14.07 @ 12:36AM|#

They get just as big a reputation boost (the source of their political power) from showing that the science works to debunk the need for change as they do for showing the need for change.

But bad news is not only more newsworthy, it is also more likely to get research funding than research showing no problem. Politicians prefer that there be a problem they can be perceived as leading the charge against AND enhances their power to boot.

I presume NSA is peopled with scientists. Scientists would prefer to have more funding rather than less, and being human, perfer to have more influence rather than less.

The wonder is that there are any scientists willing to challenge "the consensus".

uncle sam|4.14.07 @ 1:33AM|#

Sorry, I am not buying it without the citations.

Why not? You bought the accusation, an unsubstantiated assertion, and based on that, you dismissed the entire paper, apparently including the numerous references cited therein.

|4.14.07 @ 3:59AM|#

"Sorry, I am not buying it without the citations.

Why not? You bought the accusation, an unsubstantiated assertion, and based on that, you dismissed the entire paper, apparently including the numerous references cited therein."

Thanks for the details.
To be sure you understand, I dismissed the article based on (in order of importance).

the content
the fact that no citation was provided
the research I did on the lead author

The article has been published in one peer reviewed journal. The fact that the lead author points to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 3: 5 (1998) publication as if that counts is interesting. The fact that Climate Research accepted an article that had been previously published is odd, but that was their choice and may have been due to the nature of the first journal (outside the field).

I will note that Climate Research got into some hot water over a later article by Soon et al (2003)that resulted in half the editorial board resigning...

Their response
http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf

Keep that skeptical blade sharp on both sides Uncle Sam.

|4.14.07 @ 4:08AM|#

More on the controversy

http://www.sgr.org.uk/climate/StormyTimes_NL28.htm

And a critical look at the 2003 articles

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/EosForum2003_revised20June.pdf

|4.14.07 @ 4:14AM|#

He is saying you would expect as many studies refuting your prediction as confirming it (or that is how I read his point).

I don't think that's what he is trying to say.

He is trying to say, for example, that the next IPCC 5AR to roll around should narrow the error bars around the mean expected outcomes, and that that 5AR mean expected outcomes are as likely to show lesser climate change effects as they are to show greater.

Since the current predictions average in the anticipations of higher or lower estimates -- enough of them so the law of large numbers makes the distributions nearly normal -- this is exactly what one would expect. I presume he is making his point because there is an apocalyptic glee throughout most of the media whenever there are new climate change predictions and an almost universal impression that the new predictions will inevitably portend a worse problem than past predictions.

He is most definitely not saying that future studies are as likely not to verify past studies as they are to verify them. He is simply saying that future studies are as likely to predict outcomes normatively better than those of past studies as to predict worse outcomes.

|4.14.07 @ 4:18AM|#

And back to PM,

"adding new information to a forecast has an equal probability of changing the forecast in either a positive or a negative direction."

New information will primarily narrow the confidence interval if your model is at all correct.

|4.14.07 @ 4:30AM|#

I am not claiming the NAS has no bias, I am claiming that the biasing forces would not tend to push data on AGW in one direction or another.

I must disagree.

Running with the triumvirate bias I noted above for NAS...

(a) pro government interests, (b) pro US interests, and (c) pro science interests

...NAS has strong built in tendencies to come to the following conclusions on anthropogenic global warming:

1. Global warming poses problems that require government solutions.

2. Climate change mitigation provides opportunities for American science and technology products and services needed by the whole world.

3. Government should subsidize new scientific and technological efforts into alternative sources and mitigations.

It is not the politically popular stance that the NAS is likely to take. It is the stance that has the government throwing large efforts and monies at American scientists that the NAS is likely to take.

And for AGW that stance is, "AGW is a problem that needs to be solved now."

|4.14.07 @ 4:35AM|#

New information will primarily narrow the confidence interval if your model is at all correct.

Correct. But new information also more likely than not will change the mean within that confidence interval. And it is as likely to change the mean in a positive direction as in a negative direction.

|4.14.07 @ 4:35AM|#

Neu Mejican,

Rock for history.
Harris for English.

uncle sam|4.14.07 @ 7:27AM|#

Keep that skeptical blade sharp on both sides Uncle Sam.

Oh, I do, but I also note that previously you claimed only that the folk at OISM were dishonest for claiming that the paper was peer reviewed, now, when provided with citation, you have shifted the standard. My skepticism increases.

I perceive that AGWC proponents (as opposed to actual researchers) have a double standard. This was made quite obvious in their attacks on Bjorn Lomborg and anyone else that challenges "the consensus".

|4.14.07 @ 12:56PM|#

MikeP,

"Correct. But new information also more likely than not will change the mean within that confidence interval. And it is as likely to change the mean in a positive direction as in a negative direction.

Correct. PM implies, however, that if studies move that mean up rather than down, that that would be an indication that the research is biased to find problems.

PM: "Consequently, the preponderance of bad news almost certainly means that something is missing, both in the process of science itself and in the reporting of science. This paper examines in detail both recent scientific reports on climate change and the communication of those reports."

His report falls far short of demonstrating a publication bias. He makes very strong claims, but doesn't really back them up.

About the NAS - you make a good case, but the history of the NAS, from my view, still paints them as a scientifically conservative organization.

Rock, Harris...means there was some chance we crossed paths. I remember Mr. Rock exclaiming "You kids better take this stuff more seriously, I'm too old to learn Russian!" Of course, I remember my best friend in the class getting North and South Dakota switched on a map test, and including East Virginia ....Good times.

Uncle Sam

"Oh, I do, but I also note that previously you claimed only that the folk at OISM were dishonest for claiming that the paper was peer reviewed, now, when provided with citation, you have shifted the standard. My skepticism increases."

How have I shifted the standard?
It is unusual to claim "peer reviewed" without a citation. Not doing so raised flags. Multiple publications also raises flags. The lack of transparency raises flags.

They were not being dishonest.
It is peer reviewed.
Now judge it based on content.
Judge them based on their body of work.

And be sure you factor in that Soon et al have been dinged for less that rigorous practice since this paper.

"I perceive that AGWC proponents (as opposed to actual researchers) have a double standard. This was made quite obvious in their attacks on Bjorn Lomborg and anyone else that challenges "the consensus"."

So the other team doesn't like your team.
I have already acknowledged that there is lots of bad behavior on both sides. Do you admit as much? So far you only admit it coming from the AGW camp.

uncle sam|4.14.07 @ 2:36PM|#

I'm sure there is, humans being what they are, but the AGWC group is insisting there is no controversey when there obviously is. Skeptic are dismissThat the skeptics seem to be in the minority is beside the point, they are in fact dismissed in part for being a minority viewpoint.

It is my perception that the critics of the AGWC scenario are the underdogs and that even being skeptical throws one in with the critics.

I haven't made either position an article of faith, but my natural tendency from long observation of human social and political behavior is to be skeptical of anyone fomenting fear, advocating greater politcal control of people, and attempting to shut down public debate.

I see AGWC critics as seeking debate and proponents as attempting to avoid debate in the public forum. I think any reasonable individual should question such behavior.

Global warming scares are constantly making the front page of newspapers, and national magazines such as Time and many others.

I think AGWC critics have presented sufficient information and reasonable alternative interpretation to justify at least a modicum of skepticism of claims that "we only have ten years to turn the tide", and "skeptics are GW deniers", "the ocean levels will rise 20 feet", etc.

|4.15.07 @ 8:46PM|#

>>"We'll all be better off if Washington >>merely levies a tax and gets out of the way"

This I believe is what is call an oxymoron.

Taxes are goverment sanctioned theft. The government should just get out of the way.

Just get out of the way.

Tom Myron|4.15.07 @ 9:28PM|#

I would ask ask all to go to google and search: BBC The Great Global Warming Swindle. A video produced by channel 4 of the BBC. The credentials of the scientists on this video are some of the best in the world. We all have to remember that global warming is a science and is data driven as opposed to rhetoric driven. I ask all to be able to distinguish between an independent variable and a dependent variable. As the video demonstrates, temperature forces CO2 and not the reverse and that solor activity is much more influential than anything mere mortals are capable of. Additionally, we(the bad-guy human race) account for 3 to 4% of the total CO2 planet load. Why do we get our underware in a bunch?

|4.15.07 @ 9:48PM|#

Tom,

"We all have to remember that global warming is a science and is data driven as opposed to rhetoric driven. I ask all to be able to distinguish between an independent variable and a dependent variable. As the video demonstrates, temperature forces CO2 and not the reverse and that solor activity is much more influential than anything mere mortals are capable of. Additionally, we(the bad-guy human race) account for 3 to 4% of the total CO2 planet load. Why do we get our underware in a bunch?"

I urge you to have a look at this alternate view of TGGWS.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled-carl-wunsch-responds/

"When approached by WAGTV, on behalf of Channel 4, known to me as one of the main UK independent broadcasters, I was led to believe that I would be given an opportunity to explain why I, like some others, find the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful. I am, after all a teacher, and this seemed like a good opportunity to explain why, for example, I thought more attention should be paid to sea level rise, which is ongoing and unstoppable and carries a real threat of acceleration, than to the unsupportable claims that the ocean circulation was undergoing shutdown (Nature, December 2005)....In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected."

and a more general examination here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

|4.15.07 @ 9:55PM|#

More on The Great Global Warming Swindle...

"http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece

Doesn't seem like the makers of the documentary were interested in keeping it "data driven as opposed to rhetoric driven".

|4.15.07 @ 10:13PM|#

Another point by point look at The Swindle documentary


http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83

"The material presented was a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming as presented by the main world community of climate scientists and by the IPCC."

|4.15.07 @ 10:15PM|#

The video of TGGWS is here

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/great-global-warming-swindle.html

uncle sam|4.16.07 @ 12:33PM|#

I wish there was some ojective arbiter who could sort out all the claims and charges made by each side against the other.

|4.16.07 @ 5:07PM|#

Uncle Sam,

I thought you claimed above that you could serve as your own arbiter.

It seems to be the best approach we've got.

I watched TGGWS last night.
It is pretty light on data, but big on rhetoric. It only presents the view of those that disagree with the global warming claim, without any presentation of the counter arguments. It, for instance, presents a toy model of global warming and the contribution of CO2, then claims that data refutes that toy model. Those without enough understanding of the issue might not identify the toy model as the strawman that it is.

Tom M, above, demonstrates the problems with this oversimplification of the problems.

Even if past, climate change shows CO2 increase lagging behind temperature change (the point TGGWS hammers and hammers), this does not mean that C02 does not contribute to warming. It ignores feedback. The increases in C02 in the past might have been triggered by some other climate driver, but once there, they add to the temperature increase, which leads to more C02, and so on.

In the current debate, we have changed the mechanism that starts the rise in C02 (man vs. whatever the previous climate driver was). The greenhouse mechanisms are well understood, and the feedback between temperature and CO2 still apply. Increasing the CO2 increases the greenhouse effect, raising the temperature that can then start the feedback loop that leads to increased temperature.

The causation of past cycles become irrelevant.

|4.16.07 @ 5:37PM|#

Another view on TGGWS,

"For another example, the film posits the hypothesis that the planet's warming is due more to solar intensity than to heat-trapping carbon dioxide. But that assertion was long ago laid to rest by the mainstream scientific community. A number of different scientists (see below) found that the sun was the dominant external influence on the climate until the late 19th century. But with the rise of industrialization in much of the world, carbon dioxide became the dominant external influence on the climate. Today, scientists tell us, the sun exerts about 15 percent of the external forcing of our climate, while CO2 and the other gases are responsible for about 85 percent of the heating. In other words, the buildup of greenhouse gases has swamped the influence of the sun on the planet's temperature.

None of this is to say that our climate is a benign, predictable beast. It was best characterized by the author, Dianne Dumanoski, as a "leaping dragon." But the natural swings of the global climate have been exacerbated - and pushed far beyond any historical swings - but our relentless addition of heat-trapping gases.

The most significant aspect of our changing climate is not the range of warming - but the rate of warming. It is unmatched at any time in recorded history. It exceeds any rate of natural climate change throughout prehistory. And it is leading us rapidly to a point of no return in terms of climate chaos."

http://www.climatedenial.org/

The article includes links to the actual studies for the energetic.

|4.16.07 @ 5:45PM|#

Uncle Sam,

Here's something I ran across today.

An Arbiter?
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/about-climate-science-watch/