MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Market Says Climate Change Is Happening

When money is on the line, it is hard to find parties willing to bet against the scientific consensus on climate change.

WeatherIg0rzhDreamstimeIg0rzh/DreamstimeMarkets are superb at turning what participants believe to be facts into prices. An intriguing new National Bureau of Economic Research study on market expectations about climate change looks at the price trends of Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) weather futures contracts.

"The evidence shows that financial markets fully incorporate climate model projections," conclude Columbia University's agricultural and resource economist Wolfram Schlenker and sustainable development researcher Charles Taylor. "We find that the market has been accurately pricing in climate change, largely in line with global climate models, and that this began occurring at least since the early 2000s when the weather futures markets were formed."

In 2001, the CME created a weather futures market enabling traders to hedge against losses stemming from fluctuations in the weather. As the researchers explain, the predominant contracts are based on heating and cooling degree days, which are indexed to 65 degrees Fahrenheit and encompass eight cities scattered across the United States. Cooling degree days (CDD) measure by how much and for how long temperatures exceed 65 degrees and thus require cooling. Conversely, heating degree days (HDD) measure by how much and for how long temperature fall below 65 degrees and thus require heating. The CDDs are traded for the months of May, June, July, August, and September, and the HDDs are traded for the months of November, December, January, February, and March. The payoff of these contracts is based on the cumulative difference between the daily temperature and 65 degrees Fahrenheit during a certain period of time, usually one month.

The notional value of weather futures and options traded on the CME in the last year adds up to more than $360 million, according to the Wall Street Journal. Over the counter trading values are much larger.

To get a handle on what the weather futures market is saying about climate change trends and the accuracy of the climate model projections, Schlenker and Taylor compared the price trends, actual temperature trends at the eight cities to which HDD and CDD contracts are linked, and the projections made in 2006 by climate models aggregated at Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) archive. They also try to take into account the effects on prices of weather fluctuations that correlate with various ocean oscillation indices such as the El Nino-Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation.

"We find that market expectations as measured by futures prices when weather outcomes are unknown have been trending at the same rate as temperature forecasts in the CMIP5 archive," they write. "All find significant warming, i.e., an increase in cooling degree days in summer and a decrease in heating degree days in winter. Predictions of climate models have materialized, at least on average, validating model forecasts, and financial speculators with money on the line have fully internalized these forecasts."

Basically, futures prices are reflecting the model predictions that there will be fewer cold days and more hot days as a result of man-made climate change.

CDDHDDSchlenker2018Schlenker et al.

In addition, the researchers report that "market expectations have been trending up smoothly in line with climate model predictions and do not seem to respond to year-to-year fluctuation in weather outcomes. In other words, market participants do not myopically update based on weather outcomes in the previous year, but proactively anticipate a warming climate."

One interesting wrinkle is that contrary to model projections made back in 2006, recent February contracts for eastern U.S. cities indicate that traders believe that that month will see an increase in HDDs. This tracks new studies that suggest that a warming Arctic region will destablize the jet stream and result in more frigid polar vortex outbreaks during that month.

PolarVortexSchlenker

Of course, this is only one study, but economic liberals should consider seriously their conclusion with respect to what the weather market is saying about the reality of man-made climate change.

"There are also policy implications of our findings, especially since some politicians still question the existence and extent of climate change," they observe. "Anyone doubting the observed warming trend can make a significant profit by betting against it in weather markets. However, the observed annual trend in futures prices shows that the supposedly-efficient financial markets agree that the climate is warming. At least so far, climate models have been very accurate in predicting the average warming trend that's been observed across the US. When money is on the line, it is hard to find parties willing to bet against the scientific consensus."

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

  • moneyshot||

    The Dotard says science is fake.

  • Libertymike||

    Like the Countess Lisl in For Your Eyes only, "[your] nightie's slipping."

  • Nardz||

    What question do climate apocalypse advocates always avoid?

    How much of the earth's climate is determined by the energy output of the sun?

    I'll listen if they account for that.
    If not, they're not talking science.

  • Mcgoo95||

    I'm pretty sure they all account for that. If they didn't there would be no climate to discuss.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Their numbers are shit, and they don't really know how to,accurately account for it. Climate science is highly uncertain at this point. That's why the models have historically been proven innacirate, and drawing false conclusions.

    Definitely no reason to destroy our economy and cause the deaths of millions to accommodate such rudomentary efforts.

  • Nardz||

    Ok, mcgoo - show us their numbers for predicted stellar energy fluctuations and how they factor into the models.
    Show us how much weight that factor is given, and how accurate those predictions have been.

  • VangelV||

    @Mcgoo95

    "I'm pretty sure they all account for that. If they didn't there would be no climate to discuss."

    I don't think that was the question. It is clear that science tells us that changes in solar activity are extremely important. For example, the last 100 years showed the greatest solar activity since the Medieval Warm Period. The question is how much of this change was responsible for the warming that we experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age. Note that activity had been increasing even before the Little Ice Age ended, which may account why the coldest temperature were experienced during the Maunder Minimum.

  • rferris||

    They ASSUME that the output is a constant , so they do not consider it at all!

  • Mcgoo95||

    I don't think that was the question.

    The question was:

    "How much of the earth's climate is determined by the energy output of the sun?"

    Well, all of it. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. The question should've been 'how much does variation in solar output affect the Earth's climate?' I have no idea the answer to that question.

  • Mcgoo95||

    They ASSUME that the output is a constant , so they do not consider it at all!

    Although I don't disagree with you, a quick search of 'solar output fluctuations on climate' yields lots of scholarly articles going back decades. I'm guessing that cyclical solar output has been incorporated into at least some models for a while (or not). Of course, it is not possible to model random events that occur in the sun or similar things on Earth like volcanoes. So the answer is, there is no answer. Should we be concerned? Sure? Should we declare a state of emergency and flush our standard of living down the shitter in a futile effort to shape the universe? NO. I would further argue that the hysteria over climate change is actually having a bigger positive effect than most people realize by creating market demand for things like electric vehicles, more efficient light bulbs etc. The free market is the only system that can transform the world in a relatively short period of time. You can't solve a technical problem by passing a bill in congress, despite what the congress critters think. Of course, we may wish we burned more dinosaurs when this inter glacial period comes to an end.....

  • retiredfire||

    How much "market demand" would there have been for electric cars, if the government didn't subsidize - bribe - people to buy them or more efficient lightbulbs if the government hadn't banned less-efficient ones?
    The premise of this article is garbage.
    A market that responds to government influences is not a free market.

  • Migrant Log Chipper||

    Bingo, people in markets hedge bets in various ways. The possibility of hundreds of billions of Govbux to be thrown at iffy overreactions to the hysteria is hard to ignore.

  • Johnny Galt||

    ...or if the Ice Age ends they will claim they were right, just like the rooster who proclaimed he caused the sun to rise each morning.

    Check out Novasolix and 24-M batteries. When we reach price parity, less than 10 years out, the change rate will absolutely astonish the alarmists just as an earlier generation of skeptics claimed cars would never replace horses.

  • Johnny Galt||

    The IPCC report effectively says nothing about the sun. All it says is that ALL OTHER THING REMAINING EQUAL that temps vary linearly with CO2.

    CO2 from burning fossil fuels will be over by about 2050 no matter what we do. That means only about 0.15-0.2 degrees more heating due to burning stuff, a difference you will not notice. The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones.

  • RobertFl||

    I'll simplify the question.
    Tell us what our climate is suppose to be?
    What will our climate look like when it's no longer "changing".

    I'm pretty sure a changing, cycling climate is actually a healthy thing for our planet.
    It ensures survival of the fittest.

    Besides, if it's man-made, once we get the population in half, the climate should recover.
    I'm not seeing a downside.

  • Nardz||

    "It ensures survival of the fittest."

    And progressivism is all about taking that determination away from nature.
    That can be said to be its fundamental principle.

  • Johnny Galt||

    I'm always curious that the alarmists always tell us we must spend exhausting amounts of money to "fix the problem," yet never seem to suggest controlling the emissions which cause more people.

  • ThomasD||

    The 'market' doesn't pay for the 'science.' The government pays for the science. And the government largely pays for science that says the solution to the problem is more government.

    People who farm the government, or are otherwise beholden to government for the manner in which they do business tend to take note of such arrangements.

    You'd think a libertarian might tend to notice the incestuous relationship at the heart of this matter.

  • JesseAz||

    My bet is you dont even know the most basic of atmospheric science.

  • Sevo||

    He's a TDS victim with a coke habit.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And a pederast to boot.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    So disgusting, those kiddie porn links he posted.

    Why doesn't he respect Reason's property rights and leave like he was asked to?

  • Mcgoo95||

    My bet is you don't even know the most basic of atmospheric science.

    My bet is you don't either.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    But you're a fucking retard sock so no one cares what you think.

  • Mcgoo95||

    You have an epic lack of self awareness.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Fuck off you commie pedo piece of shit. No one could ever love you and you are an evil predator.

    You should commit suicide immediately.

  • ||

    *Past performance is no indication of future results.

  • Just Say'n||

    This is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the scientific consensus is that there will be more warm days then investors will invest as if there will be more warm days. In what way is this proof of anything other than investors accounting for all scenarios when investing on incidences in the future?

    You know what might actually make the case that the market is pricing in for climate change? If investors started asking for premiums on municipal bonds located near oceans or if municipal issuers started to disclose the risks of climate change in their official statements (which is still a rare disclosure).

  • ||

    This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Weather is not climate and record cold Springs don't disprove AGW, but if the market for weather says global warming is a thing, it's right for the next 100 yrs.

  • Johnny Galt||

    Rubbish. By 2050 fossil fuels will be extinct because alternatives will be cheaper.

  • Jerryskids||

    That sounds logical, but there's such a thing as "smart money". It's all well and good to say you believe something but when it comes time to put your money where your mouth is it's a different story. Money people don't buy insurance just because "somebody said so", they have to believe it's a credible, informed source before they come off their wallets.

    I think back to Harry Browne sometime around 1999 saying he wasn't that concerned about this Y2K bug the media was telling us we should panic over because nobody he knew in the banking and insurance and securities business - industries that would be devastated by a worldwide computer crash - seemed to think it was that big a deal. After Y2K came and went and Harry wrote his "See, I told you so" column, he was roundly mocked saying he "knew" Y2K was no big deal when he had really no proof but merely a hunch. And yet, watching what the real experts - the ones with their butts on the line - are doing gives you more than "a hunch", its empirical evidence. If farmers are laying out good money on crop insurance, it's a safe bet they ain't buying it just on a rumor. .

  • BYODB||

    I like how you mention farmers since last I read the Farmers almanac was more predictive than the models put forward by the AGW crowd.

  • mtrueman||

    " he wasn't that concerned about this Y2K bug the media was telling us we should panic over because nobody he knew in the banking and insurance and securities business - industries that would be devastated by a worldwide computer crash - seemed to think it was that big a deal."

    It was big enough for those industries to hire programmers to sift through and sort out the mess. Had they not done this, Y2K would have led to problems, no doubt.

  • DaveSs||

    It was big enough for those industries to hire programmers to sift through and sort out the mess. Had they not done this, Y2K would have led to problems, no doubt.

    Right, and without seeing the article, I suspect that was his point.

    No real reason to panic because the stakeholders identified a problem and were proactively fixing it because doing so would be necessary to ensure operations continue without disruption.

  • mtrueman||

    I don't remember anyone arguing we should panic over Y2K. The public and the stakeholders were rightly concerned about it. There's no need to straw man this.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    You're an imbecile.

  • TLBD||

    You have a shit memory, apparently.

    It was on the news every single day. As a teen at the time, I remember being concerned, and then pissed after nothing happened because I realized I had been lied to.

  • mtrueman||

    That's not panic. Y2K was a one time event, so it's not surprising that it should appear on the news. It's still not panic.

    "nothing happened because I realized I had been lied to."

    Nonsense. Nothing happened because programmers took the necessary steps to sort out the mess.

  • Valkanis||

    I was around. There was panic. Random people who knew nothing about computers truly feared that there would be catastrophe.

  • mtrueman||

    " Random people who knew nothing about computers truly feared that there would be catastrophe."

    Experts also feared catastrophe, you idiot. That's why they hired programmers to fix it. That's still not panic. Their response to potential catastrophe was logical and reasonable, exactly the response of someone not panicking. What's the point of insisting otherwise?

  • Mr. Flanders||

    Wow, your memory is terrible, old man.

  • mtrueman||

    You're free to tell us how you or yours panicked as a result of Y2K. Seeing a Y2K item on the TV news doesn't count.

  • Bill||

    The point is that, as with so many things, the Y2K was hyped
    and disaster scenarios and warnings were on the news for
    years. The media did not try to reassure people but rather
    to scare them. The media focused on what could go wrong
    if the problem was not fixed. My wife was worried about it
    and I had to reassure her that it would not be a problem.
    Maybe your definition/line for panic is different than
    others. I might agree with you that most people did not
    panic but those who knew nothing about computers
    were worried about it and the media was pushing the
    panic button. Concerned and worried definitely.

  • CE||

    People gave 4 million dollars to Bernie Sanders in one day, despite him have close to zero chance at the presidency. They gave 6 million to Ron Paul in one day. A market set up for believers measures intensity of belief, not accuracy of belief.

  • Inquisitive Squirrel||

    This is a tremendously astute comment. Very well stated.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    How does that figure into the idea that people agree the planet is getting warmer, but strongly doubt the human-released CO2 as the culprit?

  • Mithrandir||

    Even if it is manmade, the solutions presented by the fear peddlers have a worse economic impact than doing nothing...by the admission of their own studies.

  • Tony||

    Doing nothing means the end of all nonmicrobial life on earth, and even the microbes would be lucky to survive, so I don't know what possible proposal could be more expensive. I'm sure you have a credible link at the ready.

  • Mithrandir||

    Here you go Tony

    The IPCC report recommends that the world spend more than $45 trillion between now and 2035 in order to endow $2.7 trillion more in annual income on people living three generations hence.

  • Tony||

    Not a link from Reason, please. We get enough of that mobius strip of sourcing from Bailey.

    So $45 trillion is more expensive than the end of civilization as we know it?

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.5.19 @ 6:07PM|#
    "So $45 trillion is more expensive than the end of civilization as we know it?"

    A buck-fifty is too expensive to pay for your fantasies, shitbag.

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    No cherry picking please. Use both figures or neither.

    $45T starting now is FAR more than $2.7T in three generations.

  • ||

    $45T starting now is FAR more than $2.7T in three generations.

    Yes, yes it is.

    Exactly who are you arguing about cherry picking with?

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    The IPCC report recommends that the world spend more than $45 trillion between now and 2035 in order to endow $2.7 trillion more in annual income on people living three generations hence.

    Ipc=icked both figures (all two of 'em) from the quote. Tony picked one. Is that picky enough for you?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    the end of civilization as we know it?

    Citation needed.

  • CDRSchafer||

    Civilization will end if we believe the climate alarmists, because their solution is totalitarianism. Total government control over every aspect of our lives. In that case, it would be better if the world ended.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "Doing nothing means the end of all nonmicrobial life on earth, and even the microbes would be lucky to survive, so I don't know what possible proposal could be more expensive."

    Oh, bullshit. Like everything else in the political realm, this has polarized into two sides. One is "nothing to see here libtards!!!!". The other is "we're all going to die!! Next week!!!" As always, the truth is somewhere in between.

  • Mcgoo95||

    ^this. Like 99% of everything, the answer is somewhere in the gray.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    This has to be the fake Tony.

    Surely the real Tony is aware of the principle of the Golden Mean.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Doing nothing means the end of all nonmicrobial life on earth, and even the microbes would be lucky to survive

    Says our resident scientist, with the weight of decades of study and research behind him.

    Or he just pulled that statement outta his ass.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Seriously, Tony, you're an ignorant hick. Your cargo-cult "scientific belief" system disqualifies you from commenting on anything that requires scientific understanding.

  • Tony||

    It's just that we have evidence of runaway greenhouse effects on other planets, which may have had life but now don't. We also have evidence of rather less radical global climate change events in earth's past, and not much survived those either.

  • Mithrandir||

    So with Venus' runaway greenhouse effect, can you tell me on what timescale that likely ocurred? Millions of years? Hundreds of thousands?

  • Tony||

    Yet, no life. The largest mass extinctions on earth are credibly attributed to climate change in one form or another. But yeah those happened over long timescales. The problem with the current catastrophe is it's happening so fast.

  • Mithrandir||

    The problem with the current catastrophe is it's happening so fast.
    My guess is that it happened relatively "fast" on Venus too. I mean, in the early days of the solar system it was very close to a rapidly brightening and warming sun after all, with no real mechanism for cooling.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "The largest mass extinctions on earth are credibly attributed to climate change in one form or another."

    Yeah, climate change due to a goddamn meteor. Which made it get too cold. So, like, the opposite of the current problem.

    "The problem with the current catastrophe is it's happening so fast."

    No. No it isn't. There's been zero noticeable impact on life on earth despite the fact that this warming even has been ongoing for 40 years +.

    If you want a rational solution there needs to be a rational discussion, which you and the alarmists are too hysterical to participate in.

  • Rich||

  • Trigger Warning||

    Several years ago, we observed a gamma ray event that, had it happened a few tens of thousand of light years closer, would have fried us to a crisp.

    The universe is a rough place.

    Life on Urf has been mostly wiped out on, what, five different occasions? That we even know about.

    Evidence seems to indicate that, no matter what we do, whether there is or isn't AGW, this planet will not be able to support any sort of life in about a billion years. No matter what we do or don't do.

    Anyway. Go big or go home. Time for the Dyson Swarm.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Most life on Earth is microbial, and microbial life was never threatened during any of the extinction events.

  • Tony||

    Zero noticeable impact? Check out the poles. Check out the reefs. Check out the mountaintops. The weather patterns. You're like a rodent. Nothing that you can't see right in front of you is real.

  • VangelV||

    @Tony

    "Zero noticeable impact? Check out the poles. Check out the reefs. Check out the mountaintops. The weather patterns. You're like a rodent. Nothing that you can't see right in front of you is real."

    By all means, let us look at the poles. See much in the way of biodiversity? Compare the number of species in all of the land area north of the Arctic Circle and compare it to the number found in a few acres of the Amazon and guess where you get more species, more diversity, and more life?

  • jdd6y||

    I remember taking a class on the geography of extinction many years ago. If I recall correctly, the loss of certain land-bridges between continents was a massive extinction creator in addition to meteor/comet impacts. The reduction in species habit areas made populations more susceptible to zeroing out when something bad happened. Gambler's ruin I believe is the term that applied.

  • BYODB||

    A fucking comet that made the gulf of Mexico was pretty sudden, yeah. Not so sure the climate just gradually changed there, genius.

  • Tony||

    What point are you trying to make?

    We're going much faster than even that.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    Faster than a comet impact?

    Holy shit you must be drunk again.

  • VangelV||

    @Tony

    "What point are you trying to make?"

    I cannot comment for other people but as far as I am concerned, you lack the knowledge to support your claims. As an example, you claim that humans are having a very rapid impact. But let us look at the change in temperatures since 1950, which was the starting point that the IPCC chose, we fail to see anything unusual.

    Phil Jones, an alarmist from East Anglia and a big player on the warmer side of this game, admitted that the global temperature record used by the IPCC showed that the "rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical." Ironically, the satellite and radiosonde data shows there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998 even though nearly half of all of the CO2 emitted has taken place during that period.

    This means that you have a problem defining the word 'fast.' When you are looking at flat temperatures for nearly 20 years, you are not looking at rapid change. So where exactly is the problem? Also, note that when we look at the measured surface temperatures at stations with continuous records we see no warming trend since the 1930s. The warming comes from adjustments that ADD an artificial warming signal to the measurements. Where does the adjustment come from? Well, it is correlated to CO2 levels in order to sell a narrative that human emissions are making the world warmer.

  • JesseAz||

    The mass extinctions caused by cold events? God you're a fucking moron Tony.

  • ||

    The largest mass extinctions on earth are credibly attributed to climate change in one form or another.

    And you're stealing several bases by pretending that the current "Global Consensus" has anything to do with any of those. There used to be a theory that the dinosaurs caused their own climate change by emitting too much methane. It's also been speculated that there was a significant and sudden uptick in volcanic activity, or that continental drift changes ocean currents.

    What caused the climate changes that led to previous mass extinctions is not understood by anyone.

    Saying "climate change caused mass extinctions in the past" has fuck-all to do with your argument that human CO2 emissions are driving the current warming, which is very far from having the level of consensus you constantly claim.

    But you know all that, because it's been shown to you many, many, many times. You don't care about any of that because you don't give a flying fuck about science or the climate, only partisan politics.

  • NashTiger||

    And they were all due to Global COOLING

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    "Tony|3.5.19 @ 6:19PM|#

    Yet, no life"

    You know this definitively?

    Don't lie.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    So why did not the end of the last ice Age sterilize the biosphere?

  • VangelV||

    @Tony

    "The largest mass extinctions on earth are credibly attributed to climate change in one form or another. "

    They are not attributed to any warming. And let us note that the most recent data shows that the extinctions in the past 1,000 years were dominated by the introduction of foreign species into an environment where life was not capable of resisting their intrusion.

  • piperTom||

    Tony writes about "the current catastrophe"... !!! Uh, Tony. TONY!! You do realize that all of your readers are sitting comfortably in their dens with full tummies, don't you? Talk about "current catastrophe" is just silly.

  • Juice||

    Earth will never become like Venus, or at least not in the next billion years. The geology is too different.

  • DenverJ||

    Also, life itself has changed not just the atmosphere of earth, but the very geology, even contributing to the recycling of the surface and continental drift.

  • Bill||

    I think some planets are closer to the sun than others too!

  • CatoTheChipper||

    They used to have SUV's on Venus?

  • Mr. Flanders||

    Where do you think Republicans come from?

  • jdd6y||

    Does Venus actually have a "runaway" greenhouse effect? Given Venus' atmosphere is something like 60 times more massive, creating 60x more pressure, than Earth's and is 95% CO2, how does it have any atmosphere left at all? Unless it is relatively stable within a range -- which would kind of disprove extreme AGW theories rather than prove them.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Seriously? You're comparing Venus to what could possibly happen here? That's just...astounding.

    You really need to do some reading. Going though life with that degree of unfounded fear can't be good for your health.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.5.19 @ 6:08PM|#
    "It's just that we have evidence of runaway greenhouse effects on other planets"

    Please cite causes and timescales. Or quit making an ass of yourself and STFU

  • a ab abc abcd abcde abcdef ahf||

    CO2 during the dinosaur heyday was several times the current value. They survived quite well, and it was not climate change which wiped them out

  • BYODB||

    It can't be repeated enough that CO2 was at least double, but more probably quadruple the PPM of today and yet there was, if anything, more life than today. CO2 can't be the issue, watermelons made it the issue to try and kill capitalism.

  • ||

    "we have evidence of runaway greenhouse effects on other planets, which may have had life but now don't"

    No. No "we" don't have any evidence.

  • Lowdog||

    Seriously. This conjecture about why Venus is so hot is the start of all this CAGW bullshit, and there's no proof for it - at all.

    Once again, tony proves he is a moron.

  • ||

    This conjecture about why Venus is so hot is the start of all this CAGW bullshit

    ^ This.

    I'm old enough that I was taught when I was very young that Mercury is the hottest planet, because closest to the sun. I was still in elementary school when the knowledge disseminated that Venus, contra expectations, is hotter because of the greenhouse effect.

    Just like a naive person in the throws of an LSD trip, we then indulged in a serious bout of "we just thought of this, therefore it's happening RIGHT NOW and we're SUPER FREAKING OUT!" This is about when the realization that the planet could re-glaciate in the near future (which was the eminent eschatological disaster at the time) gave way to the fear that the planet could go full Venus.

    Weirdly the solution is the only thing that never seems to change.

    Disclaimer: I'm not denying that the planet is warming. Because apparently everyone needs to keep saying that these days.

  • Nardz||

    "This conjecture about why Venus is so hot is the start of all this CAGW bullshit"

    Is it really?
    That's insane.
    Venus is smaller and closer to the sun.
    Case closed.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    It's just that we have evidence of runaway greenhouse effects on other planets, which may have had life but now don't

    This is so pathetically desperate.

  • Mcgoo95||

    Personally, I find the article in the link as compelling, or more compelling, than the mainstream theories. I call it the 'Apocalypse of Owlsey'. Owlsey Stanley (the Bear) played a huge role in the counterculture of 60's and was very intelligent. He basically claims that the atmosphere can periodically (100k of years) act as a Hilsch tube to cause the onset of glaciation. It's an interesting theory and, I must admit, the polar vortex that seems to be re-occurring yearly makes me wonder if he might be correct. It's worth a read if you're so inclined. http://www.thebear.org/essays2.html#anchor506010

  • BigT||

    "Venus is smaller and closer to the sun"

    Exactly. VENUS gets more solar radiation that decomposes water and its gravity allowed the hydrogen to leak away, hence almost no water. Water on earth keeps it in a narrow temperature range through clouds and precipitation. Hence notVenus.

  • NashTiger||

    My God, the breathtaking stupidity, and he comes back for more again and again

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    He had the good sense to finally flee.

    But he'll be back to do it again tomorrow like none of this ever happened.

  • Brian||

    Calm down, Tonya.

  • Juice||

    Doing nothing means the end of all nonmicrobial life on earth

    ha ha ha oh wow

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Doing nothing means the end of all nonmicrobial life on earth

    Riiiiight.

  • Nardz||

    "Doing nothing means the end of all nonmicrobial life on earth, and even the microbes would be lucky to survive, so I don't know what possible proposal could be more expensive. I'm sure you have a credible link at the ready."

    This might be the most insane thing you've ever said.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Are we sure this is the real Tony?

  • Tony||

    All I asked for was a link.

  • NashTiger||

    How about when it was 30 degrees hotter than it is now 230 million years agi, and the Earth was covered with life, you fcvking knownothing

  • DesigNate||

    "That never happened." - Tony the science denying creationist.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Really, so a what 2 degree increase causes all life to die? Please do tell? You do realize idiot, that more people die from cold than heat? You also realize there will still be plant and animal life.

    Earth isn't close to Venus. Venus's condition's won't happen here.

    You should open a book, even if it's a popup, than listen to MSNBC.

  • CE||

    A 2 or 3 degree rise isn't the end of all life on Earth. It's a pleasant change. People in the US have been voluntarily movign to where it's 10 degrees warmer for decades.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Now that is an inconvenient truth.

  • markm23||

    And they still are - in spite of claims that those spots are going to be even hotter soon. Also, investment in ocean-front property is still rising. In other words, if you look at _these_ markets, people clearly don't believe that Michigan will have a tropical climate, Texas will be unbearably hot, or that Florida and NYC are going underwater.

  • VOTE MILES||

    even the microbes would be lucky to survive

    This is the sort of comment that allows AGW deniers to double down on their position. It is so obviously false that the listener immediately rejects anything else the speaker has to say. Why make yourself a laughingstock if your object is to change minds?

  • Valkanis||

    No it doesn't. No evidence suggests that all life will be destroyed even if the earth warms several degrees C in the next several decades. Not even close. Like, 0% chance. You are a fraud and a liar.

    "The microbes would be lucky to survive?" You are hilarious. You realize that the greatest biodiversity known to exist anywhere in the universe is in hotspots in the bottom of the ocean where it is massively warmer than on the surface under any extreme warming scenario. Is your brain aware of your own stupidity?

  • rferris||

    WOW, are you gullible! Please show me how any credible link can support a hoax. It is a hoax , so there are no credible links.
    The planet is/has warmed for the last 10,000 tears. We are likely close to the end of this Holocene period and if past history is any guide it will be colder in the future. It could get cooler now or in a thousand years, but the past history says that is where it will go.
    HOAX

  • Bob Armstrong||

    Determined ignorant idiocy .

  • Art Gecko||

    Doing nothing means that fewer people will starve to death. For the first time in recorded history, there are no climate-related famines in Africa, and the people in Africa, over the last 20 or 30 years, have had more food to eat than at any time in the past. That's not what I'd call a catastrophe.

  • Johnny Galt||

    Rubbish. Runaway heating merely means the end of our Ice Age, returning us to temps normal for 90% of the Earths history.

  • Tony||

    People are morons. Regardless, since you folks have insisted on moving the goalpost from "La la la nothing's happening" to "La la la it's not our fault," let's examine the premise. Who cares if it's our fault or not? The outcome is the same. We can't solve a problem unless there's someone to throw in prison for causing it, or what?

  • Mithrandir||

    Give me solutions that don't put the world in danger of seeing significantly higher levels of poverty.

  • Tony||

    After you explain how the status quo will result in continued prosperity for all.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Tony, the "status quo" is that American carbon emissions have been going down for the last decade, primarily due to natural gas displacing coal in electricity generation.

    You should be on a Chinese or Indian message board bitching at them...…...

  • Mithrandir||

    ^^

    I wonder how the people in a populous, developing country like India would fare with some of the catastrophic "solutions" presented by the fear peddlers. My guess is not very well.

  • Tony||

    We could be doing more. We could be setting an example. We could be spearheading new global efforts to help developing countries bypass their oil age. Not to make libertarians piss their breeches, but because we don't really have another option.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.5.19 @ 6:17PM|#
    "We could be doing more."

    I'd gladly do less to piss off imbecilic shitbags like you.
    But tell us how you propose to accomplish this "more" and what it costs.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "We could be setting an example."

    Germany just tried to set an example of the type you probably prefer. Their electricity costs increased by 50% and it resulted in zero reduction in carbon emissions. Because wind and solar don't work as anything beyond a minor add on to capacity.

    France went heavy on nukes and actually achieved sustained emission reductions with no increase in power costs.

    There's a solution available but Team Blue rejects it.

  • Mithrandir||

    There's a solution available but Team Blue rejects it.

    Yep, and it's fairly astounding how vehemently they reject it. If they really wanted to do something that might actually make a difference without subjecting the world to mass poverty, they would advocate building more fission reactors and implementing new fission solutions (molten salt reactors?) while we try to sort out nuclear fusion (if it ever works), but so many on the left have consistently said there is no place for nuclear.

  • ||

    Anecdotal: In 2002, I took an Environmental Science class. When I wrote a paper on addressing the reduction of carbon emissions by providing more energy from fission reactors, I was given a B on the paper because, and I quote from the instructor's comments on my paper, "nuclear power is racist".

    I appreciated the lesson, because it caused me to re-evaluate what it means to be skeptical.
    I did some research, and have never given particular credence to anything published by an "environmental scientist" since. They are almost all hacks. It isn't science, it's crazy Hippy politics based on Gaia theory. Lovelock, a pioneer of Gaia theory and the discoverer of the imaginary man-made hole in the ozone layer, was later excoriated when he advocated for nuclear power as the only solution that could be implemented in time to "save the planet" from global warming.

    Allowing environmental scientists to chime in on national and global policy is like consulting a chiropractor to make sure you are considering all the possible treatments for your cancer.

  • CLM1227||

    This is such a shame. Environmental science can be so much fun. I have a kid who loves climatology. Dealing with this rot will not be welcome.

  • DenverJ||

    Kinda tells you what they really want, or at least what they don't.

  • Tony||

    You people are so mendacious it's nauseating.

    I don't have a problem with nuclear. Better than nothing. What it isn't, however, is a free-market solution. You've been explained this ad infinitum. Stop whoring for certain specific interests as if you're being pulled by puppet strings. It's embarrassing. There is no nuclear anything without massive state investment in various forms. Jesus Christ, it's like a windmill slapped your mother. You have no credibility.

  • TLBD||

    The state will stop anyone from creating a nuclear power plant without their cut, so the state is necessary to have a nuclear power plant.

    Of course, the market could not build a better functioning, profitable, more safe, and cheaper nuclear power plant without the government.

    Don't know where libertarians would get such an idea. The market always fails at 65 year old technology.

  • Mr. Flanders||

    "There is no nuclear anything without massive state investment in various forms"

    I literally provide private financing for the construction of new nuclear power plants. Its what I do. I can say with 100% certainty that this is total bullshit.

    The state is what makes these projects cost prohibitive. Nothing kills a nuclear power plant more than the state getting in the way. They need to regulate for obvious reasons, but they go overboard -- into activism.

  • TLBD||

    Yep.

    Nuclear is their tell. It has nothing to do with climate, and everything to do with a massive redistribution scheme.

    I will never, ever take them seriously until they start advocating nuclear and stop advocating bullshit like the Green New Deal.

    If Tony were seriously concerned, he would be pissed at AOC and others for co-opting the issue.

  • Libertymike||

    A solution in search of a problem.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Kinda like how Blue team rejected Wind Turbines off of Martha Vineyard because it would wreck the view.

    When our betters like like there is a crisis, I might believe it.

  • JesseAz||

    Set the example. Kill yourself Tony.

  • ||

    We could be doing more. We could be setting an example.

    We are. Did you miss the part where we have the best track record on the planet?

    We could be spearheading new global efforts to help developing countries bypass their oil age.

    We are. The primary opposition to this is coming from the Left, currently, because ignoramuses like you won't listen to anybody else and just obstruct anything that doesn't involve government control and confiscatory taxes, even those have been proven time and again to be the very least effective and in fact counter-productive things.

    But again, you know all this - you just don't care. You've never shown even the slightest scientific understanding or interest in actual solutions to this problem. You just want to call your perceived political opposition names, because you're shallow like that.

  • Tony||

    So you're whoring for nuclear but dare not even speak its name.

    Fine, let's do nuclear. Good luck getting it to emerge from the free market. Why you choose one of the most expensive, riskiest, and least free-market alternatives is a complete fucking mystery to me since you've all been lecturing for goddamn years about how government shouldn't pick winners and losers.

    Where can I get on the fucking nuclear dole? My local tag agency? I don't even have the principles you people claim to, so where's my check? Yay nuclear!

  • DesigNate||

    Nice of you to ignore that it was fear mongering assholes like you that helped make nuclear the government run shit show that it is in the US.

  • Mr. Flanders||

    You don't know what you're talking about. I'm literally working on private financing for a nuclear deal right now.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    We could be spearheading new global efforts to help developing countries bypass their oil age

    Code word for "kill brown people".

  • Ken Shultz||

    "We could be doing more. We could be setting an example."

    The literacy rate in China is over 99% for males and females.

    The literacy rate in India is about 65% for females.

    The literacy rate for people in lower castes is presumably lower.

    American progressives seem to care more about the people of India than the government of India cares about the people of India. I think India has already suffered enough from the West setting an example a la "the white man's burden". Don't you?

  • mtrueman||

    "American progressives seem to care more about the people of India than the government of India cares about the people of India. "

    Literacy in India varies from place to place. Kerala has a population over 30,000,000 and ranks as 'effectively 100% literate,' according to a wikipedia source. The head man there is a Marxist, and Kerala has long been a Marxist stronghold.

    It seems that Indian progressives care about education too, weirdly enough. Why don't you stick to lecturing us about things you know about.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Kerala has a population over 30,000,000 and ranks as 'effectively 100% literate

    Tony and the progressives want us to sacrifice our own standard of living for the people of India, and you think that's a great idea because, unlike in the rest of the country, the people of Kerala are literate?

    If the Indian government cared as much about the poor in their own country as Tony and the progressives supposedly do, the Indians would sacrifice some of their own standard of living to educate their own people--so that Indian women aren't only 65% literate nationwide.

    There goes mtruman--chasing birds around in left field again!

  • mtrueman||

    India is a big place, with many many regional differences. Making sweeping generalizations about the place is foolish and patronizing. You shouldn't need me to tell you that, but I told you anyway because perhaps you do. Progressive Indians do care about education. That's why they elect Marxists. It's perhaps the only area where they've reliably delivered on their promises. Even a despot like Stalin, was in on this education thing.

    "Tony and the progressives want us to sacrifice our own standard of living for the people of India"

    India's part of the same planet as normal people inhabit, a solution to a global problem that doesn't include India doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Maybe you think it is. Here's your chance to explain yourself.

    "-chasing birds around in left field again!"

    I never chase birds. I am a bird enthusiast. By the way, I was surprised to discover the other day that grackles are not corvids, (like crows, magpies and jays). They are enormous gregarious iridescent black things like the corvids, but are actually part of the same family as sparrows. I guess the beak is a giveaway, as corvids have blunt stumpy beaks, rather than sharp pointy ones like the grackle. (Think parrot vs hummingbird) Grackles too have quite a lovely repertoire of vocalizations that corvids can't hope to match.

  • bvandyke||

    off type for the thread but thanks for the info on Grackles. Had to look it up to make sure as I thought they were more related to crows.

    We have Boat-Tail Grackles here, sometimes by the 1000's. Love their vocalizations, while most people find them annoying.

  • A Lady of Spam||

    You're not a very good bird enthusiast then. Grackles are icterids, aka blackbirds, not sparrows, and are very similar in appearance to a wide number of other blackbird species (see Brewer's Blackbird, Rusty Blackbird). Very little resemblance to any corvids, besides maybe superficially a crow to the layman. Also a "bird enthusiast" wouldn't be surprised to find grackles aren't corvids, because a "bird enthusiast" would already be familiar with the family and genus of common species, like the grackle.
    A lovely repertoire of vocalizations ? Birdsong and bird vocalization is my area of expertise, and I'm really not sure where you came up with "Grackles too have quite a lovely repertoire of vocalizations that corvids can't hope to match" considering both A. Crows and Blue Jays produce a wider range of vocalizations and have more complex forms of communication compared to grackles, not that it's even a comparison worth making.
    FYI you might think you sound smart but you don't, and you just come off smug. Plus what you wrote isn't even accurate. I had to comment because as an actual "bird enthusiast (lol)" it was hard to let this one go.

  • mtrueman||

    According to wikipedia, both grackles and sparrows are members of the superfamily called passeroidea. Corvids are not closely related to either. Apologies if my enthusiasm for birds is not up to your standards. Apologies also on behalf of our grackle friends for their inadequate singing.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    We could be doing more. We could be setting an example.

    You might want to check who has the most polluted cities on the planet. It's certainly not the United States.

  • Nardz||

    "We could be doing more. We could be setting an example. We could be spearheading new global efforts to help developing countries bypass their oil age."

    You want yellow vest riots?
    Because that's how you get yellow vest riots.

  • NashTiger||

    You could set an example by stopping the conversion of O2 to C02 in your body

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    "Tony|3.5.19 @ 6:17PM|#

    We could be doing more. "

    Yes, as I said earlier, you could act locally and stop breathing.

    You didn't like that and bitched at me for it.

  • mtrueman||

    Neither India or China can be considered global leaders, as the US can claim. Leadership means taking the lead, unpopular though it may be.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Neither India or China can be considered global leaders, as the US can claim.

    It's rather remarkable that someone can claim a member of the UN's Security Council is not a global leader.

  • mtrueman||

    UNSC is a talking shop. Membership doesn't mean what you think it means. France, for example, doesn't even have control over its currency. Do you really need me to point this out to you? I would have thought you capable of more than this.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    And wooooooshh go the goalposts.

  • DesigNate||

    And yet we do lead the world on cutting greenhouse emissions (I'll never understand how the watermelons convinced everyone that CO2 is a pollutant).

  • mtrueman||

    "how the watermelons convinced everyone that CO2 is a pollutant"

    Nonsense. CO2 is not a pollutant. Pollution is an unwanted by product. CO2 is the inevitable result of burning fossil fuels. I discussed this very question elsewhere on this page, and you should check it out because it's rather interesting.

  • DesigNate||

    You might want to tell the EPA that.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    If CO2 isn't the cause of the warming, then how will crippling the global economy and throwing billions into poverty help?

  • Trigger Warning||

    Something something white privilege something something raping the Earthmother.

  • mtrueman||

    It'll help me peddle my volcano extinguishing device. After all, if it's not CO2, it's gotta be those volcanoes.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    You're still an imbecile.

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    "It'll help me peddle my volcano extinguishing device."

    Nah, you'd be better off getting into the volcano insurance business...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiOx7h3eOZY

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    "Tony|3.5.19 @ 5:56PM|#

    People are morons"

    Well, you are. And you're people. So you're sort of right.

  • Art Gecko||

    How is more food and fewer starving people a problem? And why would you want to solve it?

  • Johnny Galt||

    There is nothing to solve. CO2 from fossil fuels will end by about 2050, and nothing governments can do will move that by more than a few years (or 0.02 degrees, an unnoticeable amount).

  • EscherEnigma||

    That it's easier to accept that a problem exists then to accept responsibility.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    How does that figure into the idea that people agree the planet is getting warmer, but strongly doubt the human-released CO2 as the culprit?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Risk is quantifiable. That's what risk management is about. Nothing new there.

    You don't need to know that your house is actually on fire to justify the cost of fire insurance. The relative risk of a fire and the amount you could lose is pretty much all that's necessary--along with the time period under consideration and cost of insurance over that period.

    The problem with climate change alarmists is that they throw those variables out the window. Yes, you can overpay for fire insurance. And the cost of building a bullet train relative to the benefits in terms of climate change are enormously important. The cost of the Green New Deal is every bit as important as the benefits. If the point of fighting climate change isn't also to avoid even greater costs, then you need to quantify the benefits of making sacrifices to save polar bears most of us will never even see.

    Everybody who says we have to do something without any consideration for the benefits or the costs is either out of their minds or talking about religion.

  • Jerryskids||

    You sound like somebody that didn't empty the change jar to pay for volcano insurance.

  • mtrueman||

    " then you need to quantify the benefits of making sacrifices to save polar bears most of us will never even see."

    What's stopping you from quantifying the benefits? If you are serious, come up with a figure and how you arrived at it. Otherwise, you are simply blowing smoke.

  • Nardz||

    "" then you need to quantify the benefits of making sacrifices to save polar bears most of us will never even see."

    What's stopping you from quantifying the benefits? If you are serious, come up with a figure and how you arrived at it. Otherwise, you are simply blowing smoke."

    Okay, I'll give it a shot.
    0.
    The benefits are 0.
    And that's being generous

  • mtrueman||

    Sounds like you believe a cost benefit analysis is a waste of time. Because we'll never see polar bears. You're a Chinese hoax guy, right? Or just pose as one on the internet for kicks?

  • NashTiger||

    Polar Bear populations have quintupled in the last 50 years. FACT

    Polar Bears dying is the dumbest most easily disproven hoax ever

  • mtrueman||

    FACT Number of polar bears I've seen in the last 50 years: 0. FACT (a second time)

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    Go to a fucking zoo then imbecile.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "What's stopping you from quantifying the benefits?"

    You want me to quantify the benefits of the Green New Deal? I'm not selling the Green New Deal.

    If the benefits aren't better than the costs, which have been generally quantified, then we're talking about paying for the benefit of qualitative things like keeping the polar bears around.

    The socialists are the ones arguing that the benefits are worth the sacrifices of the Green New Deal, not me. If I'm not advocating for the Green New Deal, why should I quantify the benefits of keeping the polar bears around?

    Are you following this conversation at all or are you lost out in left field again?

  • mtrueman||

    "You want me to quantify the benefits of the Green New Deal?"

    Why not? You said the costs are just as important as the benefits. How can you dismiss this deal if you can't establish that the value of the benefits is less than the cost? I ask a second time, are you serious about this or just blowing smoke?

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    Jesus Christ he pre-emptively answered your idiot question and you are still stupid enough to ask it.

    SMH

  • mtrueman||

    Ken Shultz claimed we need to quantify the benefits. Why? He's managed to dismiss the deal without any such analysis. Hence blowing smoke. Or in less idiomatic English, it's disingenuous posturing.

  • JFree||

    The mere existence of those climate markets is because BOTH sides of those transactions expect significant tail/outlier risk. If anyone expects gradual change over generations, they wouldn't spend 10 seconds even thinking about it.

    It is tail/outlier risk that costs tens/hundreds of billions (and certainly escalating in the future) EACH TIME an event occurs. Those are the ones where it can pay off enough to try to understand the risks on which type of event it will be. A hurricane. A crop failure due to eg roundup-resistant or variation-friendly weeds far outgrowing roundup-resistant or variation-uncapable crops. A disease epidemic cuz them little bugs will always evolve faster to new conditions than humans can. Decades-long drought leading to wars over water.

    Anyone who is relying on that $2.7 trillion to be even remotely serious has their head up their ass. This market wouldn't exist on either side if either side of the bet believed that. Anyone who is relying on the certainty that if bad things happen, insurance will be there ahead of time because it tried to anticipate as best as can be expected is delusional. Insurance companies work very hard to try to figure out those black swans - but more often than not when they find them they either disappear cuz of the risk - or as in 1987 (portfolio insurance) or 2008 (derivative insurance) all crash at the exact same time.

  • JFree||

    Oh - and as anyone who took Stats101 should have been taught -- None of the statistical techniques/analysis taught in this course is any damn good at dealing with outliers. Which is why we are just going to learn how to spot them so we can exclude them.

    With this climate stuff -- it's ALL about the outliers.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    It's all about bullshit, which you seem to have no ability to detect.

  • BLPoG||

    "We find that the market has been accurately pricing in climate change, largely in line with global climate models, and that this began occurring at least since the early 2000s when the weather futures markets were formed."

    That seems like it couldn't be true, since global climate model predictions have consistently and significantly overstated the amount of warming.

    I might take a deeper dive into their study since it's an interesting topic. What I would expect to find is a non-standard definition of "accurately," a very generous interpretation of "largely in line," or selection of models with smaller predictions.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "That seems like it couldn't be true, since global climate model predictions have consistently and significantly overstated the amount of warming."

    Market rates are always fluctuating based on what we know at the moment.

    There's a consensus estimate for durable goods orders and the price of oil next quarter. That consensus may be wrong, today, but its based on the information we have available to us now. Because a prediction is wrong about what will happen months from now doesn't mean that our assumptions aren't correct today given the information we currently have available.

  • ||

    Market rates are always fluctuating based on what we know at the moment.

    Yup, once again, *past performance is no indication of future gains*. Using the market, especially such a simple one, as an indicator for climate change is like using an electron microscope to chart the movement of a tortoise.

  • Ken Shultz||

    What it's doing is gauging the perceived risk of climate change given the information we currently have available--and that's about as good as any assumption is ever likely to get.

    If I want to know what to expect in terms of inflation over the next two years, looking at the difference between where two year treasuries are trading and where two year inflation adjusted treasuries are trading is about as good as any prediction is likely to get.

    Anybody who wants to tell me they can make better predictions than the market does better have a really compelling story as to why. This is why businesses from Wal*Mart to yours truly don't buy things at market and hope the prices go up. That's called the "Greater Fool Theory". We find ways to get in below market and then sell at market prices.

    I don't even buy stocks at market prices. I sell a call and give myself a discount to market. You don't argue with the market. You don't dictate terms to the market. You do what the market tells you, or you do something even more conservative than what the market is telling you to do.

  • Moderation4ever||

    Is this really news? The fact is that most educated people whether technical (science), economic, or social understand that the climate is changing and human have influenced that change. Even conservative think tanks believe in human influenced climate change. They simply disagree on the response.

    So maybe its time to stop denying climate change and start to think about a libertarian prospective and response. How do we reduce the emissions of carbon in a manner that maximizes personal choice and minimizes government control? I invite you to think about that for a while. Many Reason could use some space for this topic instead of just trying to nitpick the Green New Deal.

  • Tony||

    Ding ding ding ^^^.

    If your political worldview requires denying scientific facts, your political worldview is shit.

  • creech||

    The earth has been warming for, what, 14,000 years. Most "do somethings" I know will claim that human contribution to that warming is actually a minor factor but that this small human contribution is a tipping point that, if not halted and/or reversed will cause devastation within the next 100 years. So, if the ideal earth temperature is today's (or 1950's, or 1875's) what solutions are there to not only stop any increase in human-caused warming, but also roll back that caused by nature itself? Is massive investment in nuclear power going to do it? Do the enlightened nations need to force the non-enlightened to roll back their CO2 output? And over what time:
    without totalitarian governments, how will something like the GND ever get put in place in time to "cure" the earth's climate?

  • Tony||

    Among your willful lack of knowledge on this subject you've hit upon one of the biggest conundrums. America is actually nearly hitting Paris climate goals despite Trump (and thanks to California). It's the developing world that's the real problem, even as they, unlike the Republican party (alone in the entire world, I might add), don't actually reject scientific reality.

  • LynchPin1477||

    You can also thank fracking

  • ||

    It's the developing world that's the real problem

    So why do you keep coming here and yelling at us about this?

    Because you don't actually care about anything but the yelling at us part.

  • Lowdog||

    Ahahahahahahah. I guess your ignorance is unintentional then?

  • CE||

    The Washington Post ran a story saying they would need a string of nuclear power plants in Antarctica at a cost of trillions to pump all the rising sea water back to the center of the continent for re-freezing. Instead of building city sea walls a foot higher over the next 100 years.

  • Sevo||

    "If your political worldview requires denying scientific facts, your political worldview is shit."

    Tony admits his worldview is shit.

  • damikesc||

    Tell me about how men can become women via feelings....

  • chipper me timbers||

    Kind of like those who support rent control and minimum wage.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "So maybe its time to stop denying climate change and start to think about a libertarian prospective and response."

    You've got a lot of catching up to do, and you don't seem to understand the obvious implications of this piece.

    To get caught up, you might want to start with a book titled "The End of Doom".

    http://www.amazon.com/End-Doom.....ef=sr_1_1?

    In terms of what you seem to be missing"

    "We find that the market has been accurately pricing in climate change, largely in line with global climate models, and that this began occurring at least since the early 2000s when the weather futures markets were formed."

    Isn't the obvious implication that businesses are already taking steps necessary to mitigate for climate change?

  • Jerryskids||

    Funny how that works, that most people are smart enough to do what's in their best interest without being forced to do so by central planners. Given that fact, as P J O'Rourke observed, if the government's paying you (or forcing you) to do something you wouldn't otherwise do, it's doubtlessly something stupid.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "start to think about a libertarian prospective and response. How do we reduce the emissions of carbon in a manner that maximizes personal choice and minimizes government control?"

    There's a solution that will work with current technology and result in significantly reduced carbon emissions - work toward generating as much of our electricity as you can with nukes. As that transition occurs and electric vehicle technology (and infrastructure) improves, we should see a acceleration in the rate of reduction of American carbon emissions.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Yep yep yep. Reducing the regulatory cost of nuclear is a good start. Misunderstanding/misinformation about the risks of nuclear means that it will probably still be heavily regulated, but any moves in the right direction would be welcome.

    Of course, some of the most vocal environmentalists on climate change adamantly oppose nuclear, either out of ignorance or mendacity.

  • mtrueman||

    " Reducing the regulatory cost of nuclear is a good start. "

    It's a non-starter. Arguing that nuclear power is too safe and we can afford to scrap safety and oversight regulations to make the industry more profitable is not going to fly. Nuclear does well in China where railroading massive, jerry built, over budget infrastructure projects is something of a national pastime. Over there they've got The Great Wall of China. Here, steel slats. You see the difference?

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm not even saying we should scrap all safety and oversight regulations. Just reduce them to a sane level.

  • damikesc||

    "We should do MORE"
    "How about this?"
    "Well, no, not that. Just...MORE. windmills are lovely, no?"

  • mtrueman||

    " Just reduce them to a sane level."

    Like China, you mean. Scrapping public hearings on environmental impact and letting the owners and bureaucrats work out these details themselves without public scrutiny. As I say, it won't fly. I can't imagine a politician promising Americans that our energy issues will be solved by adopting the methods of communist China, a place Americans are leery of in the first place.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Like China, you mean.

    Yep, you nailed it. You've done everyone here a great service by outing me.

  • mtrueman||

    Anytime someone resorts to empty sloganeering, 'reducing onerous safety regulations will solve our energy problems,' I will do my duty here. The public has concerns over the issue of safety as it is. Your plan to make nuclear even less safe is so obviously a non-starter, I shouldn't have to point it out to you, let alone do it a second and now for the third time.

  • LynchPin1477||

    The public's concerns over the safety of nuclear power are, by and large, not well founded. I understand the political hurdles to reducing the cost of nuclear but you have to start somewhere. One good place might be with the facts that there has not been a civilian death in the United States due to a release of radiation, that no one died in the TMI accident and no one died as a result of the reactor failures at Fukishima, and that by any reasonable measure, the end-to-end production of nuclear power is safer than nearly all other major energy sources. This is only a non-starter if you don't actually try to start.

  • mtrueman||

    "I understand the political hurdles to reducing the cost of nuclear but you have to start somewhere."

    They've already started. In China, North Korea, Iran all have more active nuclear programmes, undoubtedly with the slack regulatory system you are promoting here. If these programmes are as successful as you believe them to be, then the America public might take another look. At the moment, it's the ridiculously high cost, of the technology that's holding it back. How much did the 3 meltdowns at Fukushima cost? That's the figure that investors want to know, they don't give a damn about how many died, they're in business to make money. How much did they lose at Fukushima?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "How do we reduce the emissions of carbon in a manner that maximizes personal choice and minimizes government control?"

    I've been arguing here for ten years, at least, that we should eliminate all socialist taxes (the corporate tax, the income tax, and the capital gains tax) and replace them all with a tax on carbon intensive activity--even if climate change is a hoax.

    If socialists can use climate change to argue for socialism, we can use climate change to argue for capitalism.

    Sales taxes are far more efficient and voluntary--in that people choose whether or not to pay them every time they make a purchase--and people who elect to go with carbon free transactions could choose to avoid paying taxes entirely.

  • Ken Shultz||

    P.S. Anybody who isn't willing to save the planet if doing so means giving up socialism has no business calling herself an environmentalist, and anybody who isn't willing to destroy socialism if it means fighting climate change has no business calling himself a capitalist.

  • ||

    ^ This is exactly why I abandoned the Green Party 'round about 2004.

  • Juice||

    people choose whether or not to pay them every time they make a purchase

    So to avoid them, one should make zero purchases?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Or ones that aren't carbon intensive, which is unlike being taxed because you earned income, profit, or sold at a capital gain.

    Use hydro electricity, you're not paying taxes for that.

    Juice up your Tesla, you're not paying taxes for that.

    Buy food that isn't raised or transported with carbon intensive activity, you're not paying taxes for that.

    The point is that you can choose not to pay taxes--and still make an income, a profit, and sell at a capital gain. That's the libertarian capitalist dream.

  • Nardz||

    Are you fucking kidding, Ken?

    This is anything close to a free market.
    It rather resembles fascism.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Sales taxes are not fascist, but taxing income, profits, and capital gains for redistribution is socialist.

  • Nardz||

    Sales tax based on carbon emissions is fascist

  • Ken Shultz||

    Um . . . no, it isn't, and if it were, it certainly wouldn't be just because you say so.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    That is an interesting idea.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    And you want to import people who rape children.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Climate change is essentially a problem with the use of common spaces. The best way to solve such problems are

    1) To not screw up emergent norms or voluntary associations that manage the use of the commons (see the work of Elinor Ostrom)
    2) To create legally enforceable property rights, i.e. make the commons less common

    #2 isn't so easy when it comes to the atmosphere, though I wouldn't entirely discount the ability of creative entrepreneurs to find new solutions when properly incentived. But absent that, a GHG credit program similar to that in SO2 is a potentially acceptable alternative. The devil is in the details of implementation and assessment, but I agree that it's important for libertarians/classical liberals to provide alternatives to awful ideas like the GND. Otherwise we might end up with something like that by default.

  • creech||

    #2 is much easier to implement with trash. The libertarian perspective rules out dumping your trash on someone else's property. Once this is enforced, capitalists have every incentive to dispose of trash properly through recycling and reducing or repurposing waste materials. Every manufacturer I ever worked for tried to reduce its waste stream in order to - gasp - lower costs and increase profits.

  • mtrueman||

    Trash is some surplus left over from a process. CO2 is not trash, as producing CO2 can be said to be the goal of burning fossil fuels, the opposite of an unwanted byproduct. Scrimping and saving is not going to reduce CO2. Either burn less fossil fuel or spend money to sequester it.

  • LynchPin1477||

    producing CO2 can be said to be the goal of burning fossil fuels

    And here I thought it was the energy.

  • mtrueman||

    We also produce mercury and sulfur when we burn coal. This is trash. An unwanted byproduct. The production of CO2 is intrinsic to the process of getting energy from coal, ie burning it. I suppose it's a subtle difference but I thought I'd attempt to lay it out here.

  • NashTiger||

    "we also produce mercury" ??

    How?

  • mtrueman||

    There are small amounts of mercury etc in coal which are released when it's burned. Power plants go to some trouble to ensure that it doesn't escape into the atmosphere.

  • NashTiger||

    That is not "producing Mercury".

    There is mercury, and arsenic, in the water you drink. Excuse me, in the water the wooly mammoths drank as well. They are naturally occurring elements. As always, the Dose is the Poison

  • mtrueman||

    "That is not "producing Mercury"."

    You are correct. Perhaps 'producing mercury emissions' or even 'releasing mercury' would be more accurate. Thanks for your input.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    You're a fucking idiot.

  • CE||

    so you only want rich people to be able to afford to breathe.....

  • LynchPin1477||

    Yep, you nailed it. You've done everyone here a great service by outing me.

  • Ron Bailey||

    M: Well, Reason has devoted some space for a while now to the topic of how to address the problem of climate change.

    Also KS, thanks for the shout out for The End of Doom. Chapter 6 asks, Can We Cope with the Heat?

  • ||

    So maybe its time to stop denying climate change and start to think about a libertarian prospective and response.

    Fuck You. I stopped denying climate change before climate change was invented. I was labeled a denier and told, "Fuck You." You don't care if the globe is warming or cooling or if personal choice or government control gets maximized as long as carbon emissions get reduced. So, as someone looking past whether the globe is warming or cooling to whether the ends justify the means, fuck you.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    How do we reduce the emissions of carbon in a manner that maximizes personal choice and minimizes government control?

    1. Stop lying to ourselves about "renewable energy" and accept that environmentalism is a political movement, not a scientific one.

  • Juice||

    nitpick the Green New Deal

    LOL it's just nitpicking. The overall idea is great! It's just the details that reactionaries want to nitpick.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's nitpicking to call into question whether or not removing all of the co2s from the atmospheres is a good idea.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    I don't think anybody but the nuttiest of the nuts is talking about removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Doing so would be impossible. The issue is what the safe level of current emissions would be. There have been and still are reasonable things we have done and can do to reduce carbon emissions with negligible impact on the economy.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    I'm actually misquoting. AOC's GND called for the removal of "all greenhouse gases from the atmosphere" would includes H20.

  • ||

    H20 in the atmosphere causes almost all climate-related disasters! Of course it needs to go!

    It's like you don't even science.

  • NashTiger||

    Hydrogen Monoxide is odorless, tasteless, and invisible as a gas. It can cause immediate death of too much is inhaled or consumed. It kills millions every year. We have to stamp out this poison

  • CLM1227||

    Dihydrogen monoxide (need two H, not one).

    What is HO, anyway? Is that a thing?
    (Kinda, it is, but it isn't a true compound... looks like it's a radicalized compound with a missing ion [-OH as hydroxyl or OH- for Hydroxide)

    I only vaguely remember hs chemistry math. I only wikid this and understand very little of it :p

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "I'm actually misquoting. AOC's GND"

    Like I said, the nuttiest of the nuts.

  • NashTiger||

    Good catch. H20 is 96% of the Greenhouse Effect.

    What we need to do is remove the atmosphere entirely, as all gases have a net greenhouse contribution of above 0.0

  • CLM1227||

    And then we can burn to death in the day time and freeze to death at night! That sounds like the perfect way to save life on earth.

  • Nardz||

    "I don't think anybody but the nuttiest of the nuts is talking about removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Doing so would be impossible. The issue is what the safe level of current emissions would be."

    Ok, Bevis.
    Can you tell us what percentage of the atmosphere is composed of CO2?
    Can you tell us what the ideal percentage would be?

  • ||

    The issue is what the safe level of current emissions would be.

    Emitting 1% of the total atmospheric in CO2 every year would probably be a bad thing after the first 1-2 yrs. of doing it. 3-4 would start to get toxic. Fortunately, we'd need some sort of second and, more realistically 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th industrial revolution to even think about achieving such a feat and, even then, the Industrial Revolution took place on more of a several decades/whole century time scale.

    Hilariously, the only person talking about anything remotely approaching such a socio-economic and industrial upheaval is AOC and she's apparently all for it.

  • Nardz||

    Nobody argues against climate change - which is why the totalitarians changed the term from "global warming" to "climate change"
    Climate changes. It's been going on for billions of years. That's what happens on planets that have an atmosphere.
    .
    .
    .
    Correction:
    There are people who argue against climate change - the proponents of totalitarian solutions to "climate change"
    You want climate to remain (rather, become) static.
    That desire is best captured by the phrase, "pissing into the wind".
    How insecure must one be to desire that conditions remain exactly as they are? Are you that scared of change?
    For the followers, yes. You're insecure, fearful, inherently inferior people. You're afraid you cannot survive any change to conditions, because you're weak and stupid.
    The climate "scientists" are simply trying to justify and continue their existence - as conmen are wont to do.
    The political/social leaders simply want more power, motivated by both greed and insecurity of maintaining their place. They are totalitarian, because without total power, their station would be subject to ability - and many are utterly incompetent outside the highly arbitrary world of politics.

  • CE||

    It comes from living a life devoid of meaning and religious belief. They want to matter so they imagine an impending disaster they need to mobilize against to save the Earth. They need to believe so they believe in the Green religion.

  • Nardz||

    Correct, ce.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Ok test time - show one model that was accurate. How about even 50% accurate?

    Was it the model that ABC News presented in 2008 saying in 2015 that New York would be underwater?
    What about the model used by London press in 2000, to say snow falls are a thing of the past.

    What about 1, just one IPCC prediction that is right?

    Again, even massaging the data to get it to fit your story, it still doesn't come close to your doom and gloom. It's just arrogrant, progressive feel good stuff because you couldn't handle that the Earth/Sun does what it wants. Unless we feel guilty and in control you don't know how to act. I know man caused the dust bowl. Man caused the dinosaurs to die. Man caused the Medieval warming period.

  • Nardz||

    Climate alarmists = 8th day adventists

  • ||

    Ok test time - show one model that was accurate. How about even 50% accurate?

    Hurricane forecasts more than halfway through any given hurricane season approach and even surpass 50% accurate for that season. So, given the first half or more of a hurricane season, they can model the remaining half with 50% confidence.

  • Mcgoo95||

    It's almost like there is something to the notion of "original sin." Mankind seems to have some need to feel guilty about something. Unrelated, he also seems to have a need for an adversary or enemy. If neither will readily present themselves, he will cultivate one in their absence.

  • Ron||

    I've also heard that monkeys make better market predictors than the market in general. let the Monkeys tell us what the climate will be

  • Sevo||

    You heard wrong.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Up above, I mentioned that there might be people who would rather not destroy socialism if it meant addressing climate change, and here they are already questioning one of the basic premises of capitalism--as if they were socialists.

  • Ron||

    I've also heard that monkeys make better market predictors than the market in general. let the Monkeys tell us what the climate will be

  • AlmightyJB||

    I was just going to post the exact same thing.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "I've also heard that monkeys make better market predictors than the market in general.

    This would make more sense if it wasn't squarely contradicted by everything Adam Smith, Hayek, and Milton Friedman taught us.

    If monkeys make better predictions than markets, why shouldn't we have central planners?

  • Ron Bailey||

    R: The monkey quote refers to failure of professional forecasters, not the power to markets to incorporate data like climate change into prices.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That makes more sense--and in that sense, a professional forecaster is even more like a central planner than a market.

    It sure as heck doesn't mean that monkeys typically outperform the market, which is what seemed to be the suggestion the other Ron was making--as if market signals were telling companies something about the risks of climate change that was less reliable than a monkey making a prediction.

  • Sevo||

    "R: The monkey quote refers to failure of professional forecasters, not the power to markets to incorporate data like climate change into prices."

    If I recall correctly, the 'monkey' trope had to do with stock picking and timing. The point being that those hoping to time the market, or consult 'charts' did no better than average, meaning that dice throws were as good as those options.
    Index funds, OTOH, track the 'wisdom of the crowd' and outperform dice throws and monkeys, as do the indices RB cites above. They have skin in the game and are answerable to their customers.
    By comparison, the H'wood lefties have yet to short their Malibu beach-front properties; they are not serious, or they are actually informed enough to understand the properties are not going to be "underwater" (sorry) in a couple of years, Tony and AOC be damned.

  • ||

    Monkeys are hilarious. I can picture one dressed in a suit buying futures contracts.

  • Mithrandir||

    Hello

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    I would totally put that gif on my facebook page. If I had one.

  • Ron||

    weather futures market
    are they actually betting on the weather or are they buying products corn, hay etc based on predictions of the weather, which the market has always done?

  • Ron Bailey||

    R: There's a bit of ag, but it's mostly electric, gas, heating oil and coal companies who hedge using these derivatives.

  • Ron||

    I wasn't sure and the only class I failed was accounting and the stock market but I think that was because the professor admitted to being a communist so who knows what I was taught

  • Rockabilly||

    Yes, the climate in changing.

    Why on Sunday night it snowed here in Massachusetts and today it was sunny.

    This coming weekend the clocks will change and the Spring Equinox is on Wednesday, March 20, 2019.

    Alert Al Gore and Leonard DeCraprio - have the jets and yachts ready to ferry all the young actresses to Leo's Italian Villa, where Al and Leo will present their powerpoint report on climate change !!!

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    This is part of America's great divide: Science vs. dogma. Education vs. ignorance. Tolerance vs. bigotry. Progress vs. backwardness. Reason vs. superstition. Inclusivity vs. insularity. Modern, successful communities vs. shambling, can't-keep-up communities. Strong liberal-libertarian universities vs. backwater religious schooling. Embracing American progress against pining for good old days that never existed.

    I know which side has been shaping America's course throughout my lifetime. I know which side I expect to continue to win. I know which side I want to win.

    It isn't the side of the selfish people who disdain science. They are America's losers. They have been for decades, if not centuries.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    Well, yeah, sure. Except nothing you just said bears any relationship to the subject of this post.

  • Mithrandir||

    It has to be a copy-paste bot, right?

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The science vs. dogma factor accurately determines the positions on global warming among those on the sides of our political divide. It also explains why one side would reject market information in this context.

  • NashTiger||

    You mean like the Real Estate markets in Miami, New York, and Malibu?

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    "The science vs. dogma factor accurately determines the positions on global warming among those on the sides of our political divide."

    This is - shockingly - completely correct, though not for the reasons you think.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Love is love and science is real.

  • DenverJ||

    Everything good = Tony's side
    Everything bad = the people who disagree with Tony

  • Sevo||

    Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland|3.5.19 @ 6:41PM|#
    "This is part of America's great divide: Science vs. dogma."

    Absolutely, asshole. Tell us about vaccinations and GMO foods, oh, lefty imbecile.

  • CE||

    and guess which side is going with the dogma, ignorance, intolerance, backwardness (hello, replacing planes with trains), superstition and insularity?

  • PG23COLO||

    It is foolish to predict the future of markets or of climate change, but being foolish is okay if you are only risking your own money. On the other hand, if you want to control the lives of other people based on what you think needs to be done to make a better or safer future, then you are a danger to liberty.
    ]
    Anyone who would state that financial markets are correctly pricing in climate change as forecast by climate models, is talking gibberish, and should not be taken seriously.

    Too much pretense, too little respect for the limits of human knowledge.

  • Sevo||

    "Anyone who would state that financial markets are correctly pricing in climate change as forecast by climate models, is talking gibberish, and should not be taken seriously."

    You really shouldn't make such an ass of yourself when the data at the top shows the markets doing that just fine.

  • komikal||

    What? This is just a strawman. Markets say *climate change* is happening, not AGW. Markets also don't say that the net effect of warming is negative, when historically it has always been positive.

  • ||

    Basically, futures prices are reflecting the model predictions that there will be fewer cold days and more hot days as a result of man-made climate change being in the warming phase of an inter-glacial period.

    FTFY

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    The market says Tesla's valuation is at what, $57 billion for a company that produced a Potemkin Village of Solar rooves.

  • Juice||

    Right? The market can be quite wrong and sometimes very very wrong.

  • NashTiger||

    The Market once said that tulip bulbs were the most valuable commodity by weight in the world, and Ricky Jordan Rookie cards were worth more than Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine or John Smoltz

  • JFree||

    Sounds like the gripe of someone who bought Ricky Jordan rookie cards rather than sold them at that price.

    'the market' is both sides of that transaction. Not someone who thinks price = value.

  • Sevo||

    "'the market' is both sides of that transaction. Not someone who thinks price = value."

    Uh, OK. I'll bet that was intended to convey a point. It didn't.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah it would be nice if there was more talk about nuclear energy. It has definitely gotten a bad rap.

    The biggest hurdles IMO are (a) unfounded public hysteria, and (b) the waste storage problem.

    And at this point I don't know which is the easier problem to solve...

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "The biggest hurdles IMO are (a) unfounded public hysteria, and (b) the waste storage problem."

    The waste storage problem is probably solvable, so I'd say the biggest problem is (a) because it's more emotional than logical.

    And the preferred "green" solutions, besides not being capable of carrying our electrical needs as the base load components, have really bad environmental issues as well. Both solar and wind will need massive - gargantuan - land footprints. And solar has a waste disposal issue as well - there are a lot of nasty metals in a solar installation and at the end of the life of a solar panel we've got to dispose of them somewhere...….

  • DenverJ||

    Solar panels have a life span of 20 years. They are definitely worse than nuclear re waste.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, maybe. That would depend on the fate of the solar panel waste. In principle, it can be recycled. Less so for nuclear waste.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    If you weren't spending so much time trying to import rapers of children you'd know how wrong you are on both counts.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh look, Tulpa woke up from his nap.

    Go away.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Look for articles by Petr Beckmann in Reason Magazine. Beckmann convinced me to vote libertarian.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Socialists to the left of me, know-nothings to the right of me. If only there were some third voice out there to speak clearly about the challenges of climate change without wanting to take over the world's economy in its name.

  • bevis the lumberjack||

    "If only there were some third voice out there to speak clearly about the challenges of climate change without wanting to take over the world's economy in its name"

    Not sure if you're referring to a specific third voice, but there are plenty of third voices out there in the scientific/environmental/engineering community. People trying to be rational and reasonable. Problem is that anybody who deviates from the consensus is immediately shunned as a DENIER!!!! by the zealous in the political and journalist commuinty. It's to the point that a lot of reasonable voices are hesitant to say anything due to the harassment.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Visit realclimatescience.com
    Tony Heller is an unabashed Trumpista, but an E.E. familiar with curve-fitting, Maxwell's Equations, trends--even what thermometers actually say. Still, this is a damn sight better than a libertarian-impersonator familiar with None of the Above but good at costing us the votes of technically-literate Americans.

  • Nardz||

    You want to talk about pollution as a problem and solutions to it?
    Cool. Sensible discussion.

    You want to talk about climate change as a problem to solve and solutions to it?
    Then explain the role the energy output of the sun plays in climate, and how much of a factor it is.
    Tell us what percentage of the atmosphere is made up of CO2 and, if current conditions aren't ideal, what would be better and why.
    Describe current climate dynamics in relation to those throughout earth's history. The climate has been changing as long as the earth has existed - describe how current changes are different from previous changes, and how you know that there's something humans can do to mitigate those changes.
    Enlighten us as to why warmer conditions are undesirable, in light of humanity flourishing when temperature has been relatively warmer.

    Show us the difference between one who knows "something" vs one who is a "know nothing"

  • Nardz||

    If you can't account for the factors mentioned above, you're talking less about science and more about faith.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Well, to kick off the discussion, I'd like to hear your thoughts on this paper.

    http://royalsocietypublishing.......2009.0519

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    It looks like it says you want to import rapists of children.

  • Nardz||

    Not how this works, jeff.
    You want action, you make your case.
    You say what you think of the paper, why you think that, what conclusions it leads you to, and then you use it as a reference.
    You make your argument. You can reference the U of Reading guy's paper, but it doesn't make your argument for you.
    After that, you can have my opinion of the paper.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Translation: You want to throw sand into the air to cloud the discussion, and then when asked to actually base your arguments on something substantial, you refuse and just continue to shift the burden.

    You make your argument. You can reference the U of Reading guy's paper, but it doesn't make your argument for you.
    After that, you can have my opinion of the paper.

    Translation: "I'm only interested in attacking your opinion, not discussing the substance of the issue"

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    YOU said "Then explain the role the energy output of the sun plays in climate, and how much of a factor it is."

    The paper I cited directly speaks to this point.

    Read it or not, I don't care.

    But I called your bluff. You aren't interested in discussing the science.

  • Nardz||

    I read it.
    Then I read other sources too.
    The science, like so much of climate eschatology, isn't settled.
    The polemic says there's no strong correlation between solar output and current warming.
    Ok, I'll concede that point (despite conflicting arguments that show solar energy output has indeed increased).

    Now address any of the other issues. Formulate an argument.
    Or just continue being a progressive parrot.
    Your choice.

  • Nardz||

    Pointing out significant factors that religious fanatics or groupthinkers like to ignore isn't throwing sand in the air to cloud discussion.
    You picked 1 of 10 issues raised and linked to a technical polemic, as if that's some sort of argument.
    It isn't.
    Make your case or sit in the corner.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Make your case or sit in the corner.

    No, your position is, essentially, "do my research for me and I will sit over here and nitpick everything and criticize everything and refuse to engage substantially in the substance of the issue". Well fuck that if that is what you are going to do.

    I posted a research article. It makes claims and presents evidence. If you believe the claims are in error, or that the evidence does not support the claims, then post your articles which make those claims and present their evidence.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    The polemic

    It's not a polemic, it's a research article.

    (despite conflicting arguments that show solar energy output has indeed increased).

    Where are your studies that show this?

  • Nardz||

    "I'm not here to do your research."

    No, you're here to advocate for climate apocalypstism.
    But it seems you're incapable of formulating an argument, unable to demonstrate your logic.
    Instead, you've decided to link a technical research paper that, yes, is also a polemic and addresses only a small portion of the issue. Then you've decided to bitch about being asked to support your position.

    For the purposes of this discussion, I will concede that solar energy output has not increased in keeping with temperature changes over the last few decades.
    1. What does that explain? What other factors are in play? From my brief research, climatologists can't explain a damn thing regarding these stats - they can only say it helps their argument, just don't know why.
    2. Having been granted the one point you brought up, address the others.
    Because right now you're just chanting "science!" and repeating dogma without demonstrating any logical connections.

  • ||

    Chemjeff is being obtuse as usual.

    Nardz is correct that there are arguments for solar output increasing and does not need to point to other studies. It is the same with almost all environmental science bullshit statistics. Look at the error bars! They constantly speculate based on their "findings" when their own data analysis shows that what they claim may not be the case at all, just in the realm of possibility.

  • DenverJ||

    The challenges are pretty mundane. The benefits are a blessing to mankind.

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    "If only there were some third voice out there to speak clearly about the challenges of climate change without wanting to take over the world's economy in its name."

    I would familiarize yourself with the work of Dr. Judith Curry.

  • Kazinski||

    This is one of those articles that finds a meaningless correlation, and then runs with it. First of all CMIP5 says nothing about temperature trends in those 8 cities, it predicts temperatures on a global scale, not a US city by city scale. Second of all it doesnt tell us what temperatures were, was a warmish trading strategy more profitble than a cooler strategy? Not that anyone would be foolish enough to encompass climate predictions in a shorr term furures strategy.

    And Third and most important it doesn't tell us what the traders actually expected the weather to be, for instance I'm a midwest propane distributor and I'm expecting a mild march so i tailor my inventories accordingly, but i make the opposite bet on the HDD futures market in order to hedge my prediction and offset the cost of spot market purchases in case I'm wrong.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    But the fact that you're even calculating for the future proves that all non-microbial life on earth is doomed in 11.5 years. At least based on current models.

  • Nardz||

    "And Third and most important it doesn't tell us what the traders actually expected the weather to be, for instance I'm a midwest propane distributor and I'm expecting a mild march so i tailor my inventories accordingly, but i make the opposite bet on the HDD futures market in order to hedge my prediction and offset the cost of spot market purchases in case I'm wrong."

    ^this

    I need to go back and read the article more closely, but it seems to me that an insurance market was created in 2000 that allows companies to hedge their bets against fluctuations that might significantly harm their businesses. It makes sense to invest accordingly when future conditions are variable and unknown, regardless of believing climate scientists/models or not.
    At first glance, it strikes me that a new product was introduced to provide relief that existed before, but was harder or less profitable to hedge against.
    That says little about the market belief in climate change, and more about the market taking advantage of a new device.

  • CLM1227||

    This makes so much more sense than the OP.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Millerite prophesy did the same thing, then changed names when reality butted in. There was a huge bull market even after the income tax became prohibition enforcement. That too splattered against reality in September of 1929. Prophesy is religion, and when it invades securities markets with service pistols pointed every which way, the word "willing" disappears and the Law of Supply and Demand is replaced first by the Aristocracy of Pull--then by Hoovervilles.

  • CE||

    history only matters when it's in ice cores

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    But The Consensus!

  • CE||

    all scientific progress occurs when The Consensus is proven wrong. always has.

  • MarketingThep||

    Save the world! , good info

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    See, the bot gets it

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    And you want to import rapists. Who rape children.

  • Rich||

  • No Longer Amused||

    It's not often Reason publishes something that is pure bullshit, but it does.

  • BigT||

    New here?

  • SIV||

    And how!

  • buybuydandavis||

    "actual temperature trends at the eight cities"

    Otherwise known as cherry picking.

    Temperatures at metropolitan heat islands would be expected to grow with the growth of the cities.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Shhh...shhh.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Neither Ron nor the rest of the Commentariat picked up on the heat island effect.
    Sad.

  • Ron Bailey||

    b: Those are the 8 cities chosen by the CME - not climate researchers.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Who said otherwise? And how could that possibly be relevant?

    Are they or are they not metropolitan heat islands?

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    Notice his silence. Bailey is a disingenuous fucking clown and deserves nothing but mockery.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Ron is the only writer left at Reason I make a point to read for something other than Two Minutes Hate.

    I don't think he's disingenuous, but he increasingly uncritically reports on papers that are transparent propaganda instead of science. Like here. Maybe he's always been uncritical, it's just that all media he follows has turned to propaganda.

    I don't know. My point about cities as heat islands should not be a mystery to a science reporter.

    I would guess he's getting phased out at Reason, and he seems to be phasing himself out as well. Phoning it in these days.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Looks like Markets have been seeing improving weather conditions.

    Too bad all non-microbial life on earth will be dead in 11.5 years because "no one is doing anything" [read: Some pompous government official isn't able to manage the global economy using Marxist theory learned in college]

  • buybuydandavis||

    Cassandras should ignored after their predicted "It's Too Late Date". If they had any decency, they'd shut the hell up then too.

    How many of these climate "if you don't do what I want in X years we're all doomed!" are past their Too Late Date already?

  • CE||

    the Dems don't even want to vote on their own plan. how urgent is it exactly?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Ron Bailey||

    DR(P): Not market models - actual markets.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    Well some of them, sort of. Real estate, nope. Bonds. Nope.

    But hey, you were close.

  • Fats of Fury||

    The market says invest in tulip futures and subprime mortgages.

  • Nardz||

    + student loans!

  • M.L.||

    Indeed -- the climate changes. That has been true forever.

  • buybuydandavis||

    And there have always been people to say that it is *your* fault.

    Gaia is angry! Repent and Obey!

  • Rich||

    "Thanks for your sacrifice contribution!"

  • BigT||

    This merely shows that AGW propaganda is effective.

    Embarrassing.

  • BigT||

    Read Judith Curry, and pay attention to Jon Christy. Most others are full of it.

  • handsoffmypineapples||

    I'd also add Pielke and Spencer as required reading.

  • ||

    What role does group think play in scientific consensus?

    What role does group think play in market fluctuations?

    What role do fashionable social/cultural memes blowing through play in academic promotions, political virtue signaling, publication decisions at private and public journals, scholarly citations by those wanting to jump on the brightest bandwagon that is rattling by?

    How many people really know when to jump off a bandwagon, because it was headed nowhere all along?

  • ||

    The problem with climate science is that, NO it is not settled. There is a whole bunch of variables. Is it happening? As warming is not inherently bad, should we even worry about it? Is man a significant contributor to it? Do we possess the necessary technology to effectively make a difference in it? Does the US acting along make any difference in it? Can we we financially afford it?

    Every single one of these question with the exception of the 1st, Is it happening?, is still an active question.

    Anyone who says otherwise is either selling something, an advocate of one of the many sides of it, or needs to do more reading outside of his or her chosen advocated position.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    Agreed. I like Bailey but he needs to admit Climate science is broken. In science, you test, you get data, your get a hypothesis and you re-test. Climate science says it's man's fault, test but doesn't get the answer it wants, and changes the data to match. If none of the models match what your prediction is, your understanding is wrong. This has been going on for at least 20 years.

    Why Tony and brain dead rev complain about corporations, climate science is big money from governments.

    Oh and the Propacle Gore sold his company to an oil company. He really practiced what he preached.

  • mtrueman||

    " In science, you test, you get data, your get a hypothesis and you re-test."

    It's your conception of science that is broken. The hypothesis comes first. It's your hypothesis that the experiments are designed to test. The hypothesis doesn't appear late as some afterthought, it's there right at the beginning before any experiment is conducted or data gathered.

  • BigT||

    Yes. After the data are collected you REVISE the hypothesis.

    AGW believers revise the data.

  • mtrueman||

    "AGW believers revise the data."

    It's not as nefarious as you believe it to be. Take the temperature of the ocean for example. Drop a bucket from your vessel, take a sample from the surface and see how hot it is using a suitably sciencey scale. (Kelvin perhaps) Problem is that the same water in a wooden bucket, a steel bucket or a plastic bucket will yield different results. SAME water, DIFFERENT results. Here is where the need to massage the data comes in. Nothing nefarious, just taking into account the evolution of sampling techniques that goes back centuries.

    My advice: stick to the Chinese Hoax.

  • dchang0||

    Markets are not infallible.

    The Dutch tulip bulb mania, the housing market crash of 2007-8, today's student loan bubble and housing market bubble--these are all people who bet big money on the wrong forecast(s).

  • Tony||

    The problem here is not an incorrect theory so much as embarrassing cultlike horsepucky.

    Any remotely sane human being of average intelligence knows that any human invention (like the market) is not infallible. You don't need to have a degree in anything to understand that.

    Yet libertarianism is the premise that the market is godlike in its wisdom. I think I already mentioned cultlike.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    "Tony|3.6.19 @ 12:09AM|#

    The problem here is not an incorrect theory so much as embarrassing cultlike horsepucky."

    So if you know you're doing that, why are you bitching at us instead of just stopping?

  • Mickey Rat||

    No, the libertarian theory is that the market can act with greater knowledge than any relatively small group of economic planners. It denies that government has godlike powers,

  • Tony||

    But nobody claims government has godlike powers except Trump bestie Kim Jong-Un.

    Stop being so fucking stupid. Could you try that for a day?

  • Nardz||

    The claim that governments (or humans) can know the causes of climate precisely, create plans that address those causes accurately, and through policy shape climate effectively are claims to godlike power.

  • Mickey Rat||

    How does what the market predicted for CDD and HDD compare to what actually happened?

    What this measures is level of belief, not accuracy of belief. Most of what this tells you is the people in the markets believe what the consensus of climate experts told them to believe. If markets were completely accurate in their beliefs, they would never bubble.

  • CE||

    Yet miraculously, high end real estate in Miami, Manhattan, Honolulu and Hong Kong continues to sell for ever higher prices. You'd think people investing that kind of money would shy away from future ocean bottom lands.

  • chemjeff's rapist imports llc||

    Shush, Bailey is emoting.

  • ||

    Thermophilic eubacteria have been found thriving in temperatures up to 255 degrees Fahrenheit. Anyone who states that global warning will end all life on Earth is a reality denier.

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I like to tell people that of course it's changing. It always has and always will. It was both much warmer and much colder at different times before humans had any influence or were even in the picture. It is the height of hubris to presume we can stop it. Might as well decide to stop continental drift.

    We have been highly successful as a species because we've been good at adapting. And sorry, but adapting doesn't mean voting in different power-hungry idiots than the current power-hungry idiots.

    This is why I often don't get invited to parties.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    So, markets are reacting to climate change. How about that. Gee, I thought only "woke" politicians and pundits were capable of that.

    I do wonder what the correct global temperature is, and how the "experts" arrived at that figure.

  • awildseaking||

    According to markets, there wasn't a .com or housing bubble either...

  • Azathoth!!||

    The market says nothing of the kind.

    Coastal properties are not being abandoned.

    SUVs are not being scrapped.

    Airline travel is not cratering.

    The only market that says global warming is a concern is the market for male cow manure.

  • Ron Bailey||

    A!: (1) Actually there is growing evidence that the prices of coastal properties are being discounted. It would also help if the Feds would stop subsidizing coastal development with way underpriced taxpayer supported flood insurance.

    (2) If man-made global warming is an externality caused by burning fossil fuels like oil and gasoline which is not priced in the market, then of course one would expect there to be NO effect on the sales of SUVs and air travel. But keep in mind that during the gas price spike last decade, the bottom fell out of the market for SUVs and light trucks. The same thing would happen if a carbon tax is adopted to account for this externality.

  • BigT||

    (1) merely says the AGW propaganda is working.

    People act on info. Bad info, bad investment decisions.

  • Ron Bailey||

    BT: If it's bad info, you'll make a killing by buying up mistakenly discounted coastal real estate.

  • awildseaking||

    The point was that popular belief in AGW theory would result in reduced SUV sales and gas consumption. It has not, which indicates that consumers don't seriously believe AGW theory is as catastrophic as, say, driving a smaller vehicle on the road.

    Btw, SUVs recently replaced sedans as the most popular vehicle class in the US.

  • Ron Bailey||

    a: Yes, but consider this. In 2008 the Ford F150 truck got 14 city/20 highway mpg. Gas averaged around $4.00 per gallon. Today, the Ford F150 gets 20 city/26 highway mpg. Gas averages today $2.70. People are just reacting to incentives, not doubting global warming.

  • Nardz||

    People are just reacting to incentives, not believing in global warming.

    Works both ways

  • ||

    I'm still driving my 1998 F-150, which gets 12 in city and 14 on hwy, but only has 51K miles and I'll never wear it out. Runs like a top. Looks good. Doesn't have some new gizmos, so what?

    You can drive obliviously all the way to the bank. My retirement advisor taught me that.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Ron,

    A) is laughable. The entire article is supposition and wish. As a person who is actively seeking coastal property, I can tell you that nowhere are prices going down, nowhere are properties being abandoned because of rising sea levels--hell, the weird hurricanes of 2018 that destroyed entire cities barely registered a blip.

    Now, to be fair, I must admit I see the best of the Washington Post as the equivalent of the booze soaked ramblings of a homeless schizophrenic, but that was just silly.

    There is as much 'evidence' of this as there was of a student from CovCath attacking and honored tribal elder.

    And the decade old article from Wired. Ah. Memories. Say, how long did the 'death' of the SUV last? Not even a year? Ah.

    I would love to know what it is they have on you that you write article after article refuting the AGW believers yet still claim that you believe them.

  • Morgan44||

    Here's a quote within the coastal properties article that was cited: "You could turn it around, almost," Wachter said. "Despite all the discussion of sea level rise, and despite the tremendous increase in the number of events over the last years and the destructiveness of the events, coastal building continues and coastal property appreciation continues." (Even with taxpayer supported flood insurance, you would think people would still steer clear of coastal properties.) Perhaps these people are smart enough to discover there has been no significant increase in hurricanes.

    It doesn't take long to find a number of reports that show prices of waterfront properties continuing to appreciate.

    I keep hoping prices for waterfront property on Cape Cod will plummet. It's just not happening. I don't want to make a killing by "buying up mistakenly discounted coastal real estate." I would just like to be able to afford a waterfront property purchased from someone who mistakenly believes sea level rise has, or will, suddenly accelerate. Even NOAA only estimates about 1/8" annual rise for global sea levels. And I suspect NOAA would really like to claim it's more if they could get away with it.

  • jerryg1018||

    "When money is on the line, it is hard to find parties willing to bet against the scientific consensus on climate change."

    The majority of scientists have concluded that climate change is a hoax.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Now here is an inconvenient truth.

    http://www.facebook.com/beinga.....389062329/

  • Tony||

    Facebook, the most trusted name in news.

  • Dallas Tom||

    Ya, the markets also said that tulip bulbs were more valuable than gold.

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Weather futures is one of the most lightly traded markets on the entire CME.

    Yesterday's volume: 0 contracts.

  • TravMcGee||

    According to this study , colder days is what the global warmists have predicted. Another BS article about so-called climate change. The futures market is a zero sum game , just as many traders are betting against a warmer climate. For every buyer they have a seller for every contract traded. There is no difficulty finding sellers or buyers of these contracts

  • VangelV||

    These types of studies only show just how corrupt the social sciences have become. When we ask, is climate change happening, the clear answer is yes because climate always changes. But if we ask if man is creating dangerous warming the clear answer is no. After all, we are not particularly warm at this time over whatever timeframe we choose to look. And if we care to look, warmer is better, which is why scientists called the warmer period around 10,000 years ago, the Holocene Climate Optimum. The global warming scam was created by charlatans who decided that it was a good way to personally profit from the stupidity of politicians and the gullibility of voters.

  • hayek > friedman||

    *cue a bunch of white-trash nothings making citation-free claims about global warming being a hoax.

    "although i'm not a climate scientist, and have absolutely no expertise in the subject matter, i disagree with the overwhleming majority of the subject matter experts because.....a.) link to amateurish, non peer reviewed work, b.) it's cold outside today, c.) the climate always changes or something like that"

  • SDN||

    *cue a bunch of Leftist Gaia cultists making evidence-free claims about man-made global warming being a hoax.

    "although i'm a climate scientist looking for government grant money, and have absolutely no actual expertise in the subject matter, i agree with the overwhleming majority of a carefully selected poll of a minority of the so-called subject matter experts because.....a.) link to amateurish, falsified and selectively peer reviewed work, b.) it's hot outside today, c.) a claim based on falsified data and predictions that have been 100% wrong about the climate changes or something like that"

    FTFY. Your fraud is being challenged, and since your potential slaves are not going to submit, we'll gear up for dealing with the current crop of Democrat slavers the way we dealt with the last crop in 1861-1865.

  • Nardz||

    Nice

  • drisco304||

    The market says nothing about whether or not climate change is man-made. It's just a reflection of forecast temperature changes, not causation.

  • rferris||

    It would sure be nice if Reason had a better science guy. Bailey means well, but is hopelessly NOT really into science or he would do better at pointing out the hoax being perpetrated on us all.
    Science is against consensus,science is about proving things false , not trying to prove them true. Bailey seems barely familiar with the scientific method in his writings as he never takes it into account in his analysis.
    The market reflects what is believed by investors based on what they are being told. When ocean front properties go down in value because owners fear the sea is rising , then the markets will be supporting the Hoax.

  • Lester224||

    Maybe the climate skeptics are motivated by their oil and gas investments? In the early 1980s, fossil fuel stocks comprised seven of the top 10 companies in the Standard and Poor's 500 Index. Today, only one, ExxonMobil, is in that class, where it ranks seventh after having been number one as recently as 2010. Energy stocks were messed up by fracking to start, which really reduced prices and destroyed the value of reserves. The old "worth in reserves" strategy doesn't work anymore and oil, coal and gas are just commodities. Like it or not the climate consensus, particularly in Europe where it is strong, puts long term investment in oil and coal particularly at risk. Diversifying into non-fossil energy is a risk-lowering strategy.

  • piperTom||

    Bailey says that "futures prices are reflecting [more hot] days as a result of man-made climate change." Bzzzzzzzt! The market might predict more hot, but that "as a result of" business is Bailey's invention. Also, ... weather is climate now?

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    They're betting on the politics of climate change, not any "scientific consensus".

  • Bob Armstrong||

    Additions of CO2 at these already optically saturated levels has an undetectable effect on temperature , but a substantial effect on greening the earth and increasing agricultural yields .

    The equationless AlGoreWarming paradigm literally denies Newton's Law of Gravity which explains the 33c endlessly claimed as due to some . again , equationless and never experimentally demonstrated spectral GHG "heat trapping" .

    Most destructive anti-science statist cult ever .

  • Jayburd||

    "HIDE THE DECLINE"- Mikey "Nature Trick" Mann, when 6 million in grant money was "on the line".

  • SDN||

    A "libertarian" claiming that a "market" established SOLELY by government fiat and the threat of Leftist judges awarding big damages under a distorted legal system is actually a "free market".

    Doublethink in 2019. Orwell would applaud your mad skillz.

  • TxJack 112||

    What a load of crap. No one is arguing the climate is not changing but only about the cause. I love it when areas that have a history of drought, suddenly have one and it is because of climate change. The state of California is actually desert or semi arid. California was changed by moving water from the mountains in the north to the central and souther regions. Hurricanes cause more damage, not because they are more powerful, but rather because people who have no concept of hurricanes from interior states move south and build huge homes right on the beach "for the view". Storm rolls in and home is destroyed. The California wildfires were so devastanting because environmentalists sued and stopped the clearing of underbrush to keep the forest "natural". All that underbrush became fuel for the fire and we all kniw what happened. Stupidity is the cause for so many of these "disasters" not climate change.

  • TxJack 112||

    The climate changes every day. It rains one day and is sunny the next. Ha!!

  • mondo_cane||

    Don't confuse weather with climate. The climate isn't changing because of a rainy day or a sunny day.

    If I were you, I wouldn't reveal my ignorance by adding "Ha!" to your comment.

  • Duelles||

    When climate experts claiming global warming begin to try and prove their theories wrong I will pay attention. Now, they attempt to prove their theories right which makes them not credible, unscientific and unbelievable! Consensus science is not science, it is BS.

  • jagjr||

    the problem with this entire article is that tit makes no distinction between climate change and human-caused climate change. there doesn't seem to be any debate as to the first occurring, and the markets act accordingly. there is a great deal of debate as to whether the second is true - despite the repeated statements in the article about man made warming, none of the market decisions had anything to do with the cause of warming, just a belief that it is occurring. nothing in the article indicated that the research tried to determine why the market was making decisions, or whether there might be a tendency to bet that radical economic changes were needed. there is a huge difference between acknowledging that a change is occurring, and going all-in to dismantle our economy in a vain effort to alter the course of that change. the research does absolutely nothing to illuminate if that all-in bet is one that should be taken.

  • Johnny Galt||

    Exactly, and the silly author probably can't distinguish between them. Of all the temperature averages seen in the history of the Earth, today's temps are the least likely comprising only about 0.1% of historical averages. If the current inter glacial period ends we will drop ten degrees back to normal temps for the Ice Age we are currently in. Those make up about 10% of the Earths history. If the Ice Age ends, temps will shoot back up to temperatures 10 degrees hotter and normal 90% of our history.

  • mondo_cane||

    I'm completely baffled by this constant drumbeat of climate change. Climates have been changing all over the world since time began.

    A thousand years ago, the southern half of Greenland was a grassy meadow which the Vikings thought was ideal for grazing sheep. But the climate changed.

    Less than 500 years ago Europe had what is called a "little ice age" when average temperatures dropped by a precipitous amount.

    There are many other examples around the world, but these are enough to make my point.

    The person who wrote this article is ignorant of what he's attempting to write about. He is conflating global warming, which is not happening, with climate change, and then extrapolating the imaginary numbers so as to show an impact on businesses.

    The lack of knowledge shown here is astounding and embarrassing.

  • Johnny Galt||

    AGW is already as good as over. Technological improvements such as 24-Ms batteries, now entering production, and Novasolix solar harvesting technology, nearing production, affirm what industry experts are reaching consensus on - that by 2028 solar plus batteries will be cheaper than coal in most places. About six years later they will be half that price, and companies will be ditching fossil fueled plants just as quickly as they can build replacement capacity.

    With daytime only solar powered plants springing up in sunny areas we will also see energy intensive synth fuels become cheaper than anything pumped out of the ground. Vehicle drivers will start using them for the obvious reason that they are cheaper.

    By about 2050, or even sooner, the world will be CO2 neutral for the same reason people stopped buying horses and typewriters and steam engines- better alternatives will be cheaper. It is literally too late for governments to impact this time Lin in any meaningful way except by wrecking the economy, which would slow innovation.

  • BigT||

    An argument for AGW has been the relatively rapid increase in temperature that people think is happening how. However, new evidence shows that very large (15 C) temperature changes over just a few decades happened in the past.

    University of Bergen (Norway), analysed marine sediment cores from the Norwegian sea to reconstruct changes in sea ice during the last glacial period, focusing on the abrupt climate change events. This was complemented by climate model simulations of the last glacial period.

    The abrupt climate changes – known as Dansgaard–Oeschger climate events – had global implications and comprised temperature shifts of up to 15°C over the Greenland ice sheet and happened within decades.

    https://tinyurl.com/y46g88hm

  • Roger Knights||

    I haven't read the 420 comments above, so I apologize if this matter point has already been made.
    ----------------
    "Schlenker and Taylor compared the price trends, actual temperature trends at the eight cities to which HDD and CDD contracts are linked, and the projections made in 2006 by climate models aggregated at Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) archive."

    [They concluded:] "the observed annual trend in futures prices shows that the supposedly-efficient financial markets agree that the climate is warming."

    Non sequitur. it's likely that the "eight cities" they examined became more urbanized over time, and thus that their Urban Heat Island index increased. The researchers should have looked at the U.S. temperature figures in NOAA's Reference (rural) network to see if there has been as significant a warming trend there as in their eight cities.

    "In addition, the researchers report that "market expectations have been trending up smoothly in line with climate model predictions and do not seem to respond to year-to-year fluctuation in weather outcomes. In other words, market participants do not myopically update based on weather outcomes in the previous year, but proactively anticipate a warming climate.""

    They may just be betting on an increasing UHI effect because of increasing urbanization around temperature stations. (Since most of the population is urban, these indexes will correlate well with demand for natural gas and heating oil.)

  • MoreFreedom||

    No the markets do not say climate change is happening. It's simply saying people believe it's happening. Which is what you might expect given the resources the government has invested in making people believe global warming is happening (should I say climate change instead - the weather changes and always has).

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online