MIT’s Richard Lindzen is one of the world’s leading climate scientists. He is also a climate “skeptic,” rejecting claims that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are likely to create a climate catastrophe. Above all others, he is the climate skeptic environmental activists most fear, as he has unimpeachable credentials. As a prominent climate scientist who believes global warming could cause an environmental catastrophe confided to me, Dr. Lindzen’s views are not easily dismissed, even if his views are somewhat outside the “mainstream” of climate science. (Of course, we may have to reconsider what constitutes “mainstream” climate science after the leak of e-mails and other documents from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.)
Today, Dr. Lindzen has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on “ClimateGate” and the state of climate science. According to Dr. Lindzen, there is “a scandal that is, in my opinion, considerably greater than that implied in the hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit (though perhaps not as bad as their destruction of raw data): namely the suggestion that the very existence of warming or of the greenhouse effect is tantamount to catastrophe.” The problem is that the entire climate change policy debate proceeds as if the primary — if not only — question to be answered is whether human activity is having an effect on global temperatures. This quesiton is important, but it hardly resolves the relevant policy questions. Even if human activity is having significant effects on the cliamte system, we must determine whether those effects are likely to be negative, whether the causes or their effects can be prevented, as well as whether it is better to try and prevent such changes or adapt to their likely effects. We must also determine whether human welfare is at greater risk from climate change or proposed climate change policies — an open question at this point — and recognize that the answer to this question may vary from place to place. The answers to such questions will be informed, but not determined, by science. Normative and other considerations must also come into play.
As Dr. Lindzen suggests, the pretense that a given degree of warming requires a particular policy response — and a particualrly urgent and dramatic one at that — places substantial political pressure on the scientific process. “It is only such a scam that lends importance to the machinations in the emails designed to nudge temperatures a few tenths of a degree.” Whether or not one accepts Dr. Lindzen’s assessment of the science, this point about the nature of the climate change debate is immensely important.
Also worth reading, John Tierney on the threat of “smug groupthink” in climate science.
Rogervzv says:
The real problem here is that the world probably needs or has a use for, maybe a dozen climate scientists worldwide. These people used to labor in an obscure academic discipline of little practical effect. Then this “Global Warming” hypothesis got going in a media frenzy, and suddenly these obscure people were thrust into a financial and political limelight. The entire discipline has a financial and professional stake in the existence of some sort of “crisis.” That is what we are seeing with the Climategate mess.
In all history climate warming has correlated with greater human prosperity and bounty. The prosperity during the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Climate Optimum contrast sharply with the disasters of the Little Ice Age from which the Earth emerged circa 1875-1900. Of course the Earth is warming up since that time! It should be!
December 1, 2009, 10:07 amBlue Neponset says:
If we keep arguing about it, it will become a moot point. If you and your ilk really wanted to find a compromise solution we could have found one about thirty years ago. Instead, we were told for decades that the “environmental activists” were wrong and man wasn’t causing global warming. Now, that this argument can’t be substantiated, the new argument becomes, we don’t know enough or we can’t do anything anyway.
It just doesn’t seem like you want to find a solution to this problem. As a result, it is very difficult to take your concerns seriously. Instead, your essay reads like a paper from a big energy think tank.
[RESPONSE: BN -- If you bothered to consult the VC archives on this topic -- or my other recent writings -- you'd see I've been advocating various "compromise" measures to address the threat of climate change for many years. See, e.g., here and here. JHA]
December 1, 2009, 10:13 amMark Buehner says:
No, the argument is that the earth’s warming is unprecedented and catastrophic, and that man’s CO2 is the cause of it. That question is still very much in the air, particularly since the foremost climate experts that WROTE the IPCC are implicated in fudging their results to downplay past warming and play up current warming.
Ah, the inevitable charge of being bought by scary Big Energy, without even the courage to make it outright instead of backhanded. How much money gets pumped into climate research by the way?
December 1, 2009, 10:32 amsitzpinkler says:
I don’t want “solutions” that are worse than the problem.
December 1, 2009, 10:35 amI don’t want to enact “solutions,” at great cost, that won’t have a meaningful effect on the ultimate outcome.
I don’t want “solutions” to a problem that might not exist.
karrde says:
If I recall correctly, thirty years ago was when some leading news organizations were publishing articles about a coming Ice Age.
The science behind the claims may have been much thinner, but there wasn’t (to my knowledge) much concern about Global Warming in 1979.
More to the point, there are several logical steps between “The Earth is Warming” and “We Have To Do Something About It.”
As outlined in the article, the usual train of thought is:
(1) Earth is Getting Warmer on a century-plus timescale
(2) This Warming is due mostly to human effort
(3) A catastrophe will result if the Warming is left unchecked
(4) Strong governmental controls must be put in place to stop the coming catastrophe.
The science on part (1) is pretty solid, though the observed effect is small. (A measured 0.6 degree per century, if I remember correctly…with the historical knowledge that both the Thames and the Hudson froze regularly during the 1600′s and 1700′s, but don’t freeze regularly now…)
However, step (2) is what is in doubt, as well as step (3).
I recall that historical records also show that at some point in the past, vineyards in England were growing grapes, and Vikings found grass in Greenland. (Time period in question is roughly the Medieval Climate Optimum, or 800-1200.)
Historians are unclear as to whether this warming was a Regional or Global phenomenon, mainly because data is sparse.
Geologists have hinted that cyclical Ice Ages may occur in Earth’s history.
Thus, the data on step (2) is muddled by cycles that we don’t have good historical data on, and the conclusions are full of assumptions.
Not only that, but the data on step (3) is also full of assumptions. Previous periods of Warming and Cooling tended to produce catastrophic changes to human civilization in the Cooling phase, not the Warming phase (whether the Cooling was Regional or Global).
Thus, I agree with Lindzen, and think that disputing him as a Big Energy type is a faulty argument.
December 1, 2009, 10:36 ambartman says:
It just doesn’t seem like you want to find a solution to this problem.
We don’t presuppose that it is intrinsically a “problem”, and we also worry that the proposed cure may be much, much worse than the disease.
I also suggest that a lot of the AGW synod are not interested in finding a solution, given their vitriolic denunciations of the merest consideration of geo-engineering techniques. They don’t want a technical solution to AGW, they simply see AGW as a vehicle towards implementation of an anti-capitalist, anti-industrial, neo-Luddite agrarian society. A new collectivist Gaia, with all sacrificing for the common good. They want us to go back to the 17th Century, and some of us are saying that we don’t want to go back there.
The Synod are free to commit themselves to primitive poverty, but I’m not going to let them drag me there with them, not without a fight.
December 1, 2009, 10:41 amuh_clem says:
Hermann Rorschach would be proud of this little controversy. The anti-AGW camp sees proof positive that AGW is a hoax, while the mainstream scientific community only sees a messy bunch of smudges.
Carry on, guys. Let me know when somebody changes their mind over this.
December 1, 2009, 10:49 amDotar Sojat says:
When the Vikings were farming on Greenland and running herds there, Florida was still above water, Antartica and the polar ice cap were still there, the seas teamed with lfe, and the Earth was perfectly habitable. Many people are just not convinced that if, for whatever reason, the planet returned to such a climate where this once limited activity were once again possible, i.e., prior to the Little Ice Age, that it would be a bad thing. It’s a tough sell, unless it has to be bad for some other purpose. I suppose this makes me one of the “ilk.”
December 1, 2009, 10:57 amRichard Aubrey says:
The problem with the MWP is that nobody can demonstrate that it was a VERY BAD THING, or even a BAD THING.
December 1, 2009, 10:58 amIn fact, it was probably a good thing.
Since we haven’t yet achieved the MWP temps, we have a problem. Or we do if we’re AGW fans.
We can’t prove it would be a bad thing.
(Caveat. I like a hard winter for esthetic purposes, but that’s because I can afford to stay warm and buy food from other locations. Gray, wet slush is icky. Drop ten degrees and have some clear skies.)
So the MWP needs to go away.
It’s not merely that it’s a warming which can’t be linked to humanity. It’s that it was a good thing. And the AGW people are trying to see it doesn’t happen again.
WRT regional: There are a number of Native American societies which crashed, disappeared, or were greatly changed, along with one unexplained folk wandering (Aztecs)about the time of the beginning of the Little Ice Age, if you take the definition–which you will find one place or another–as starting in the fourteenth century. Might be a connection.
When the Earth cools, more water is in ice and unavailable to humans, and less evaporation happens, so less of it is carried inland. Previous land-use patterns find themselves out of date due to lack of precipitation.
Doesn’t take much if you’re just barely above marginal to begin with.
Blue Neponset says:
I might actually believe that if there were any evidence that you and your ilk were willing to compromise at all. Instead we get told that global warming is a myth. Climate scientists are smug. etc. etc.
If, as Prof. Adler suggests, “[n]ormative and other considerations must also come into play” then it would make sense that the anti global warming forces would be open to some alternative compromises. I haven’t seen that at all. It leads me to believe the anti-global warming crowd is motivated by factors other than finding a solution to this problem.
Re: Compromise solution
A nice compromise solution would have been some serious funding of alternative technology research. That would not only help the global warming problem but it would help quite a few other problems as well. I wonder why the allies of “Big Energy” don’t seem open to that solution?
December 1, 2009, 10:59 amHouston Lawyer says:
Right now this looks like the witch trial out of the Holy Graile.
December 1, 2009, 10:59 amuh_clem says:
Jones turned me into a Newt!
(I got better.)
December 1, 2009, 11:02 amfrankcross says:
This seems exactly right, but it’s ultimately an indictment of the opponents of action on climate change. They have overwhelmingly attacked the mere existence of manmade warming and given very little time to the consequentialist policy questions (save for Lomborg and a few others). They engaged in a battle on their weakest turf, foregoing much stronger positions
December 1, 2009, 11:04 ambartman says:
The anti-AGW camp sees proof positive that AGW is a hoax.
Nice strawman. Few are claiming a hoax, many are saying that:
(1) Every aspect of this issue, from theory, data, interpretation, modeling, feedback and forecasting are all fraught with great degrees of uncertainty and yawning knowledge gaps. However, some climate scientists have glossed over this uncertainty, putting aside the skepticism that was bred into them in their educations, and declared the problem as known and the solutions as defined and unique.
(2) The claims of impending peril are wildly, wildy overblown.
BTW, Clem, I’ve changed my mind on this issue. Before I began to study it, I bought the AGW party line, hook, line and sinker. Education brought me around to the skeptic side.
December 1, 2009, 11:06 amLaura(southernxyl) says:
No, I and my ilk are not willing to compromise on scientific principles. Make of that what you will.
December 1, 2009, 11:08 amMartyA says:
If Lindzen is so smart, how come he’s no where near as wealthy as Al Gore or the guys at CRU?
December 1, 2009, 11:13 amMike S. says:
I suppose it would be churlish to point out that, in fact, 30 years ago environmentalists were actively demonstrating to increase CO2 emmission (that is to say, against nuclear power plants.) However, for a small fraction of what it spent on the housing crisis and is proposing to spend combatting gloabal warming, I suspect (haven’t run any numbers) the government could have had a greater effect on both issues by buying all those housing tracts built to satisfy speculative demand and building nuclear power plants there.
December 1, 2009, 11:14 amDavid Chesler says:
Thanks to those who question if it is a Bad Thing (let alone whether it is a Very Bad Thing.) As winter sets in to the north, I’m not convinced.
Where have they demonstrated that this is the best of all possible worlds?
Question: Are all of the papers based on raw data that East Anglia’s CRU had the only copies of? Data themselves don’t need credibility. It seems the prudent thing to do is re-run many models and analyses using what is now believed to be correct data.
December 1, 2009, 11:18 amAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
The reason alternative energy is alternative rather than dominant is that it is more costly. In other words, a switch to alternative energy results in a lower standard of living for the general public.
BTW, billions on billions are already being poured down this rat hole to fund rent seekers whose product (wind, solar, et al) consumers won’t buy but for government coersion. Have you noticed how NBC is AGW alarmist and is owned by GE that makes wind turbines?
One last question, is there an anchor tied to your kiester that prevents you from investing your savings in alternative research?
December 1, 2009, 11:18 ambartman says:
I wonder why the allies of “Big Energy” don’t seem open to that solution?
You mean “Big Energy” companies like BP, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Exelon, Dow Chemical, Pacific Gas & Electric, Duke Power, and so on? Or are they not “big” enough for you?
http://www.us-cap.org/about/members/index.asp
December 1, 2009, 11:23 amrarango says:
As one of Mr. Neponset’s referenced “ilk” I would like to suggest that he has conflated GW with AGW. As for this particular “ilk,” I think GW is an empirical question (at least I did until the CRU emails), and I am quite willing to accept temperature data for drawing a conclusion. It is quite possible to believe that GW is a fact; but, the next question most relevant to policy impliations is what is causing GW. And in my view that jury is not only still out, it may even be tainted. (full disclosure: I own no energy equities)
December 1, 2009, 11:35 amwws says:
Blue Neponset reveals a serious depth of ignorance when he(she?) writes that “A nice compromise solution would have been some serious funding of alternative technology research.”
Do you have any idea how much money has been spent on funding of alternative energy research? Every avenue has been pursued madly, because anyone worldwide who comes up with something will be an instant billionaire! The problem is that most of what non-technical people have been told is viable is nothing but fantastical wish-fulfillment thinking with no basis in fact. Nothing yet found has come close to matching the cheapness and widespread availability of fossil fuels. I wish there was something, really, because I would be helping to bring it about if there were.
For one example, a favorite has been wind power – but the vast wind farms that have been built around Abiline, Texas over the last 6 years only produce power 30% of the time, because the wind doesn’t blow as constantly as was hoped. The other 70% of the time the electricity they’re supposed to provide has to come from natural gas fired backup generators. (If you’re not technical and don’t read the reports, you probably didn’t know that)
Solar? It still needs a technical breakthrough that would raise the conversion efficiencies by one full order of magnitude before it’s truly economic. First Solar and the German government have been putting billions of Euro’s into researching this, but they’re not there yet. No telling when they will be. Maybe a year, maybe 10, maybe 20. Here’s another thing about research – more dollars does NOT always mean faster success. The US has pumped at least $100 billion over 50 years into fusion research – and we got nothing. Every physics lab in the world has been working on room temperature superconductors for 25 years now – we still got nothing. You never know when, or even if, that one crucial breakthrough is going to arrive, and it may never arrive.
I’m involved in a small way in a venture startup trying to make either synthetic oil or oil from algae. Lots of other venture companies are in this, too, and let me tell you – best projection is that even if the science works out, mass production is still about 15 – 20 years away. (a lot more if the science doesn’t work out)
Geothermal? Yeah, if you live on top of Yellowstone it might work. Other than that you lose too much energy through the lenght of the wellbore to make it viable.
Hydrogen? Puh-lease. Water isn’t a viable source, since the oxygen-hydrogen bond takes too much energy to break. The only viable source for Hydrogen power is to use natural gas (CH4) as a feedstock, and then guess what? You’re still in the same fossil fuel dependance as always.
Do we even need to go into how bio-diesel and ethanol have been absolute commercial disasters and have bankrupted almost everyone that has put money into them? (except for those lucky enough to continue to be supported by direct government grants and payments)
Give me any energy production system you can name, I can draw you a basic block diagram of it on the back of a napkin. Personally, I always thought that pebble bed nukes were the most promising, but it was the greens who killed that, just as they’ve worked hard to kill all of the promising clean coal technologies that were being developed.
So what’s all that talk about “reasonable compromise” again?
December 1, 2009, 11:39 ammischief says:
Which lead me to believe that you are not serious about compromise — that in your eyes, it is a term for extorting things.
Are you not even willing to concede that “this problem” is a unsubstantiated rhetorical ploy?
December 1, 2009, 11:44 amrmd says:
Regardless of the merits of any other argument on either side, this particular argument has become tiresome in the extreme.
December 1, 2009, 11:45 amBlue Neponset says:
Big energy isn’t dumb. They, like the tobacco companies before them, realize they need to appear to be part of the solution. It is a PR move.
Also, you and your ilk don’t seem to want to address my point directly. Why aren’t you willing to compromise on this issue? The consequences of doing nothing may be great. If you are truly concerned about reasonable solutions to this problem then why have you done nothing at all to find a compromise solution. Y.A.Y.I. have done nothing but renounce global warming as a myth. Once again, it is hard to reconcile Prof. Adler’s nuanced position on this subject with the vehement opposition to any kind of solution to this problem.
In short, where are the anti global warming moderates? I have yet to see any.
December 1, 2009, 11:51 amBlue Neponset says:
Not enough to find a solution.
December 1, 2009, 11:52 amray_g says:
The environmental movement has always had a vocal segment that is anti-technology, anti-human, neo-Malthusian, and for 40+ years have declared crisis after crisis that would end civilization as we know it. And each time they claim that some massive governmental intervention is needed to avoid catastrophe. They lost their credibility long before the AGW episode. The real mystery is why anyone continues to listen to them.
December 1, 2009, 11:53 amRichard Aubrey says:
“not enough to find a solution”
December 1, 2009, 11:57 amPresumes a solution exists which is economically feasible.
Presumes facts not in evidence.
Presumes that some folks will countenance writing checks for nothing endlessly.
Noop.
Blue Neponset says:
It is called taking a risk. You and your ilk are willing to take a risk on the vast majority of climate scientist being wrong. Yet, you aren’t willing to risk some $$ on trying to find a solution to this problem and many others. Thank you for proving my point.
December 1, 2009, 12:09 pmh2u says:
Your repetitive usage of “ilk” is getting quite annoying…
December 1, 2009, 12:21 pmzuch says:
Prof. Adler:
John Tierney is hardly one to expound on smugness … or science.
But getting into specifics:
Harry’s difficulties are not definitive. He’s not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed (but perhaps a bit better than the person preceding him). That he fails to understand how a lot of stuff was done doesn’t mean it was done wrong. Better to understand what was done, and then show how that was done in error. That hasn’t been done (despite the 110 dB claims of many in the blogosphere and elsewhere).
Cheers,
December 1, 2009, 12:24 pmlucia says:
Blue Neponset
First: Who, precisely are the “ilk”, and what position do you think they take? And what position do the “not ilk” take?
A compromise would require identifying the two sides and finding the middle ground. So, we need to know the two positions to determine what might be considered a compromise between the positions of “those Neponset calls ilk” and “those Neponset calls ‘not ilk’”?
I myself am all for encouraging construction of nuclear plants to provide stable baseload. Does this sort of thing fall in the “not ilk”, “ilk” or compromise range of proposals?
Big oil is funding alternative energy. It appears based on your comments that they are “ilk” and their supporting and funding alternative energy is not a compromise.
Based that your comments in this thread, it seems likely that your definition of compromise is “Make Blue Neponset dictator so he can order everyone about.” But maybe that’s not so. Let us know the two extreme positions, and then we can figure out how you define “compromise”.
December 1, 2009, 12:27 pmkdackson says:
“ilk” [=] anyone who disagrees with me.
“reasonable compromise” [=] doing what I want.
“unreasonable compromise” [=] anything hort of reasonable compromise.
Does that help?
December 1, 2009, 12:33 pmHarryEagar says:
‘Not enough to find a solution.’
The solution is to use that good oil Nature left for us to use.
Gaia wouldn’t have left that stuff around for any idiot farmer in Texas to find if she hadn’t intended us to use it.
December 1, 2009, 12:34 pmkdackson says:
Oh, and I see the zuchtroll is back.
Cheers!
December 1, 2009, 12:34 pmkdackson says:
There is a reasonable solution – nuclear energy.
However the problem of getting enough on line by 2050 is insurrmountable, even IF the environmental pinheads would step aside and embrace it.
To replace the 40% of US generating capacity necessary to reduce GHG emissions by 2050, would require the construction of 400 1 GW (1000 MW) reactors.
That is equivalent to comissioning one every 37 days for the next 40 years if we start now.
Anyone see that happening? Anyone?
December 1, 2009, 12:38 pmNowMDJD says:
From a policy standpoint, there seem to be four important questions, which must be idstinguished.
1. Is global warming taking place (If not, no need to change policy inresponse to it)
2. If so, what changes will this cause, and how will they affect human viability generally and in specific areas?
3. If mean Earth tempreatures are rising, is it caused by human activity? (If so, it is reasonable to consider altering those activities. If not, we still have to deal with the consequences, but the solutions are different.)
4. In any case, if mean Earth temperatures are rising and adverse consequences are likely to result, what methods will ameliorate those consequenses with the least cost and the least disruption of human activity? (Decrease carbon use? Climate engineering? Building dikes and irrigation projects? Relocation of people to higher latitudes? Etc.)
December 1, 2009, 12:41 pmkdackson says:
You know, what is now New York City was covered by glaciers up to 1 km deep as recently as 12,000 years ago.
It will probably be under the ice again in another 12,000 years.
So maybe we should embrace AGW as a method to stop the imminent destruction of New York, New York.
December 1, 2009, 12:44 pmcirby says:
Do you have even the vaguest clue as to how much money has been spent on “alternative energy” research over the last couple of decades? It’s literally in the tens of billions of dollars. Some alternative-energy advocates whine that the US Department of Energy only spends a few billion a year – while not noticing that many other Federal departments dump money into the field too, that the states have followed suit, or or that private-sector funds are doing the same thing.
The really big problem, though, is that you’re complaining about other people not “taking a risk” with their own money… while not knowing that they already DO.
December 1, 2009, 12:56 pmLargo says:
A cow is of the bovine ilk. One end is moo; the other, milk.
December 1, 2009, 1:05 pmMark Buehner says:
Hate to blow your mind, but Big Energy is deeply invested in alternative energy. They stand to make A FORTUNE if cap n trade go through. Sorry that doesn’t line up nicely with your Evil Corporation worldview.
You want an alternative- great. Lets go completely nuclear in the next 20 years. Funny, I don’t hear all the espoused ‘end of the worlders’ calling for a crash drive to go nuclear and save the planet. That in itself tell you a lot about what they really believe.
December 1, 2009, 1:07 pmkdackson says:
Stop Plate Tectonics NOW
December 1, 2009, 1:10 pmBlue Neposnet says:
LOL, tens of billions over 30 years. ExxonMobil has earned a $40 billion profit in the last couple of years. You don’t seem to be aware of the scope of the issue.
December 1, 2009, 1:12 pmkdackson says:
Yeah, Blue, and the reason we have no “alternative energy” is that the cost of the alternative energy is more than the cost for the equivalent amount the traditional energy.
The big companies, unlike the federal government, are in the game to earn a profit.
December 1, 2009, 1:16 pmMark Buehner says:
Physically- it would be extremely easy. In 1970 the Atomic Energy Commission projected there would be 1000 plants by 2000. Then came 3 Mile Island and the China Syndrome. China is scheduled to have 80GW worth of reactors built by 2020. Its certainly doable without building much faster than we did in the 60s.
Politically- of course not. The enviros and their Democrat allies oppose them at every turn and put up every roadblock possible to slow them down (kill them mostly). It would take a major political upheaval to do so- something like all the Global Warming advocates telling us that the world will end coming to the conclusion that building nuclear plants is actually preferable to the dead of the human species. But i don’t see that happening.
December 1, 2009, 1:21 pmMark Buehner says:
I’ll leave it to you to tell everyone with Exxon in their 401k that you are taking their retirement money to build windmills.
December 1, 2009, 1:24 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Had a nice think about “solutions” recently.
A mid-sized city owns some land in our township–thirty miles away from them.
They want to get a variance to put up a couple of 415′ wind turbines.
We had a community meeting last night with the city official involved to explain things.
Among other things, there’s a grant for $15 million. They claim WET will save them $565,000 annually. That’s under 4% on their money–not their money–and the multiplier is going to be pretty slim, none of it hitting us.
What will hit us is noise, both the audible and the infrasonic, shadow-flicker, ice throw, and the deaths of birds and bats in our preserved fly way. We’ll have to put up with the infrastructure.
Property values will plummet.
For which we get to feel good about ourselves and the city makes the money.
Since it is said that the juice it takes to make a WET is rarely produced over its service life–which the city said is less than their anticipated payback period–it amounts to a big, ugly self-licking ice cream cone whose only practical use is to attract subsidies.
It is surprising how many sharp people there are in a group of two hundred middle-aged, middle-class people of varying backgrounds, amplified by the opportunities of looking at stuff like the specs and contract on line.
The setbacks are going to be half that recommended in Europe and elsewhere. Terrif.
Anyway, as I looked at the plotting of the thing and listened to various folks, something occurred to me.
This thing will be shut down during migratory season. Two months. Other mitigating restrictions may apply. The layout–700 feet apart instead of the recommended 1/3 mile–will mean inefficiency.
They will not get the efficiency they plan for, or claim.
During the Depression, there were comments that we’re paying some guys to dig holes and other guys to fill them in, but it’s okay because we’re getting the money out there.
From which a thought occurred. Is it even necessary that this thing work at all?
One guy did some research on the Danish experience and said that their CO2 emissions don’t change, since they have to ramp up their fossil-fuel generation when winds are down, and vice versa, which is less efficient than running at the most economical speed all the time.
Wondering what, besides subsidies and feeling good when this is imposed on somebody else, is the point of this nonsense.
If the township board heard us, they won’t vote the variance.
And we’ll be hammered as Gaia-rapers who hum that old time hymn, NIMBY.
But we have a cunning plan. We’re going to use the local bald eagles and the migratory Indiana bats as our spotted owls and delta smelt. Those critters can stop a train.
December 1, 2009, 1:30 pmcirby says:
Blue Neponset:
Yeah, trivial amounts of money.
Oh, wait – it’s not. It’s a stinking HUGE amount of money, and is certainly enough for any rational person. It’s approximately the same amount being spent directly on cancer research.
I really understated the amount, by the way – if you include things like financial incentives (tax breaks), as well as direct funding for alt-energy research, something like $50 billion a YEAR is being spent by the US… out of the $100 billion or so being spent worldwide.
…except that I am. While Exxon Mobil has earned a lot of money ($40 billion over two years isn’t that much money, considering the incredible size of that corporation), they’ve also invested a lot of money in alt-energy research – they recently dropped $600 MILLION in biofuel research alone, on ONE project. But you didn’t know that, did you?
December 1, 2009, 1:31 pmRichard Aubrey says:
cirby
December 1, 2009, 1:33 pmI expect blue did. But he either didn’t think that was enough or he was hoping we didn’t know.
kdackson says:
Mark:
Recently, someone asked me in a public forum what it would take for me to admit that AGW was a real crisis. I gave the following 3 conditions:
1) The people who stand to make a pile of money off of the AGW scare start behaving as if it were a real problem. No more flying private jets, no more mansions that use more energy in a month than most americans use in a year, etc.
2) The environmental groups need to stop opposing nuclear energy. Because the replacement has to come from somewhere.
3) The developing world (China, India, and soon to be Africa) needs to commit to reducing GHG emissions. China now emits more CO2 than the US. India is almost there. Shifting manufacturing to these locations with their lax (i.e., noexistent) environmental laws only increases the problem. And until you have lived in one othese areas, please spare me how bad the air and water quality is in the US.
So until such time as the stars align, I find it laughable that AGW is an issue, let alone a serious problem.
December 1, 2009, 1:35 pmBlue Neposnet says:
Curious. Why does it always come down to taking stuff away from people? The choices aren’t black and white like that. We could have spent less on [fill in gov't program] and spend more on alternative energy. Why the scare tactics?
December 1, 2009, 1:36 pmMark Buehner says:
Because we live in a world of limited resources. OF COURSE i could find 50 billion dollars to throw at solar energy next year, but the farmers would pitch a fit when i cut off Ag-subsidies, and since we don’t live in a dictatorship I can’t just wave a wand and make it happen. Unless we intend just to print more money of course.
December 1, 2009, 1:39 pmgeokstr says:
Where have I heard that before? Oh, yes, with literally every failed liberal “solution” to just about anything whatsoever – all the failure proves is that we haven’t spent enough on it yet.
Why, I’ll bet we could cure cancer in less than a year if we devoted the entire GDP to research, and then the last three people who hadn’t starved to death in the meantime would never have to worry about cancer again, only about where their last meal was coming from.
And all those above who say let’s build lots of reactors are not only showing the lie to the ilk-refuse-to-compromise meme, but are exposing exactly who it is that refuses to compromise, and it ain’t us ilk either.
I’ve made this point over and over again in these AGW threads for nearly a year – in the US alone, we have 250 million cars and light trucks that operate on gasoline now, not including planes, ships/boats, trucks, most of the military and construction equipment, etc. For the next generation or two at least, until the left’s perpetual motion machine is finally perfected, we will need fossil fuels. And all the while, we fund our most bitter enemies by having to buy fuel from them when we have reserves right here that can last us a hundred years. We need a rational, sane transition plan.
But the left would rather have us be beholden to our enemies as we trash our economy back to the stone age, in order to do what they want, right now.
Talk about being unwilling to compromise.
December 1, 2009, 1:49 pmBlue Neposnet says:
It’s 80 billion over two years, Mr. Aware of The Circumstances.
December 1, 2009, 1:51 pmkdackson says:
Yeah, they’re doing it for the planet:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/12/01/al-gore-asking-1-200-shake-his-hand-copenhagen
December 1, 2009, 1:55 pmBlue Neposnet says:
That still doesn’t explain the scare tactics. The rest of us aren’t bound by your lack of imagination. I am sure there are some smart people who could figure a way to finance some serious alternative energy research.
December 1, 2009, 1:56 pmPubliusFL says:
Let’s prohibit the use of “and your ilk” in VC discussions. We can call it the “Guilt by Association with Untrue Scotsmen Corollary to Godwin’s Law.”
December 1, 2009, 2:03 pmMark Buehner says:
Ok. So why hasn’t anyone?
December 1, 2009, 2:05 pmh2u says:
That depends on your definition of “smart.” I would argue that a truly smart person would recognize that we have already developed a compelling alternative. But the implementation of this alternative would require compromise from people like Blue Neposnet…
But, as geokstr points out, that still wont solve the transportation problem. Our entire transportation infrastructure is built around fossil fuels and there is simply no way to change that in the short term. We need to better exploit our domestic resources and embrace a transition plan to some form of electric transport. And, personally, I think Tesla Motors has a real chance of creating lightning in a bottle.
December 1, 2009, 2:10 pmkdackson says:
Blue, that’s just it. Technology requires at least a basic grounding in reality. Need energy? You need to extract energy from something.
Wind – kinetic energy and low efficiency
Nuclear – toxic waste but decent efficiency
Solar – low efficiency and not really viable in cloudy areas
Alternative fuels (i.e., ethanol, biodiesel) – chemical energy which to make C-neutral requirese breaking and remaking bonds, purification is energy intensive but possible.
Short story – except for nuclear, lots of basic research needs to be done, and we don’t have the time to waste to make these viable.
December 1, 2009, 2:12 pmMikey says:
If all it took was a pile of money and a bunch of “imagination,” I daresay we’d have had all these questions answered by now.
December 1, 2009, 2:14 pmbob says:
Today’s post is entry number 214 in Mr. Adler’s series which might be called: I will readily concede the reality of climate change and man’s role in it in a brief sentence and then I will devote thousands of words to picking apart the evidence of climate change and man’s role in it.
December 1, 2009, 2:21 pmBlue Neposnet says:
Because we have wasted our time arguing about this stuff for the past 30 years. This is the point I have been trying to make. If the anti-global warming crowd were anything but a bunch of anti-government zealots and big energy apologists then we would have found a compromise solution to this issue a long time ago. Instead we keep arguing about this while very little gets done. Who benefits while we do nothing but argue about this issue? If you can honestly answer that question then you will understand why we haven’t done much of anything about this issue for the past three decades.
December 1, 2009, 2:21 pmtarpon says:
The warning signs were all there as far back as 2006 with the Congressional Wegman hearings, how the data was being manipulated and faked were noted.
Just like with the sub-prime mortgage scam, the scammers said it was all OK.
And then it all went bad. I wonder how many scientists knew all along, but were held back from speaking because of their government grants?
December 1, 2009, 2:22 pmJohn Moore says:
Blue Neponset, if you had read the numerous long threads on VC before posting your diatribe, you might have learned something. OTOH, based on your responses here, you may never learn about this subject. Could it be that you are a result of modern liberal arts education (i.e. modern politically correct education)? Could it be that you don’t have the benefit of quantitative science experience?
naw… only people of our “ilk” are ignorant
December 1, 2009, 2:22 pmcirby says:
Blue Neposnet:
That’s my question. Since you’re so upset about Exxon’s stockholders making so much profit, you must be suggesting that we take it from them to fund alternate energy research (in addition to the huge pile of money they already spend on their own, and the tax money taken from them to pay for government research).
…and as others have pointed out, if you take that “extra money” away from Exxon, you’re actually going to be taking it out of the pockets of shareholders – which are mostly funds owned by unions and local governments, which fund retirement accounts for a LOT of people.
December 1, 2009, 2:24 pmh2u says:
No, we wasted the last thirty years by not building out an infrastructure consisting of modern nuclear reactors. All thanks to the “environmental” movement! You and reality are more disconnected than a cell phone in an underground parking garage…
December 1, 2009, 2:25 pmMark Buehner says:
Who’s arguing now? You’ve got democratic super-majorities in congress and a dem president. Go spend X trillion dollars on speculative energy and we’ll look at the report card in a few years. Who’s stopping you?
And speaking of compromise- what about nuclear power?
December 1, 2009, 2:28 pmBlue Neposnet says:
I am not upset about it. I used that example to show that tens of billions of dollars over thirty years is a drop in the bucket.
Next strawman please.
December 1, 2009, 2:40 pmzuch says:
Ahhhh, yes. After the happy times of the Nineties, the first decade of this century has been surfeit with disaster after disaster all thanks to the crazy-spending libera… — ummm, hmmm, waidaminnit…..
Cheers,
December 1, 2009, 2:42 pmRyan Waxx says:
That’s really funny, given that with climategate broken wide open, it now seems the AGW data was a bunch of smudges that required blatant data manipulation before it was fit for others to see, and only people who saw the picture the gatekeepers wanted them to see got to be part of the peer-reviewed club.
But hey, being able to spin something 180 degrees from reality and keep a straight face is a skill like any other. Ever consider running for congress?
December 1, 2009, 2:43 pmCurious Passerby says:
The latest news is that the worldwide ban on aerosols in the 80s to “save the ozone hole” has contributed to global warming!
So I was right to lampoon them and gleefully spray my aerosols skyward!
Why don’t people just leave well the f**k alone! Everything will be fine if we just stop with these emergency campaigns to save the planet.
December 1, 2009, 2:49 pmgeokstr says:
This is so far beyond hypocritical that it is difficult to make it up.
Who exactly is talking about:
- New York City underwater
- “tipping points” after which our climate becomes a 900 degree Venusian inferno
- millions in the Ganges delta drowning
- half the earth’s species going extinct
- monster tornadoes and hurricanes tearing up the planet
- 60 foot walls of water crashing down on all the coastal areas of the world
- almost forgot – whatever is supposed to happen to the Maldives
- that’s off the top of my head; I’m certain dozens more apocalyptic scenarios have been used by one side of this debate
Must have been us deniers using all these “scare tactics”, right?
Oh, wait…
December 1, 2009, 2:55 pmgeokstr says:
Nice try but no ceegar. Forcing financial institutions to give away real estate to people who couldn’t afford it was a philosophy espoused by your own Community Organizer in Chief. To the extent Bush followed that same insanity, I blame him too, but the underlying philosophy was “spreading the wealth”, not exactly a conservative one.
December 1, 2009, 3:04 pmcirby says:
Blue Neposnet:
Sorry, but that won’t wash.
I’ve had eco-nuts whining for YEARS about the “massive” profits of Exxon and other companies. Now you’re telling me that they’re fairly inconsequential, because they’re a significant fraction spent (by the Federal government alone) of the money spent on alt-energy research?
You must have some number in mind for the “right” amount of alt-energy funding. Since $100 billion a year worldwide isn’t enough for you, then what is? $110 billion? $200 billion? A half-trillion?
More?
Here’s a clue: throwing ever-increasing amounts of money at a problem doesn’t always get you a solution. There are a lot of very clever, very dedicated people doing alt-energy research right now, and the thing most of them will tell you is that money isn’t really the issue. You CAN find a lot of politicians and naive Greenies who keep asking for “more funding,” but they can’t honestly tell you towards what.
You can also find a lot of scam artists and daydreamers who are certain that the great breakthrough is just around the corner – all they have to do is take a lot of money and hire some smart people and… er, it sorta breaks down about there…
December 1, 2009, 3:05 pmRyan Waxx says:
The scary thing is, had those emails not been leaked, useful fools like the ones in this thread would still be insisting that the lack of peer-reviewed opposing views proved that there was no more debate to be had.
The “paid by energy companies” smear is merely moving the goalposts now that the “not peer-reviewed” smear has been exploded. Both smears rely on finding some common characteristic of outside studies that are forced upon those studies by the very fact that they aren’t part of the AGW club, and using that as a reason to dismiss without examination all opposing information.
Apologies if I seem to imply that Climategate caused anyone on the AGW side to actually change their views. I actually meant to compliment them on their lion-like conviction that the science is correct that stands even in the face of revelations that science as we know it had never been practiced in the first place.
December 1, 2009, 3:11 pmwws says:
Blueneponset – I gave you a rundown of the technical status of almost every major alternative energy proposal being considered in this country today, and told you who’s investing in them and what the current development prospects are. (not everything, that would be tedious, but I think I could answer any specific technical question you have) You, however, simply waved this off with the cheap out “not enough is being spent.” You are not serious about this discussion; your only goal is to try and score cheap political points for whatever reason. This is why any idea of “compromise” with someone who thinks as you do is a non-starter; you do not argue or even think in good faith, and you clearly have no interest in any good-faith solution. You hide from any facts that don’t comport with the narrative you are trying to push, even though you have no facts of your own.
Also, it’s obvious that you have never worked in a lab (I have), never done any technical research of your own (I have) and never participated in any actual development projects for either conventional or alternative energy. (I’ve done both) If you had ever done any of that, you would realize that wishing for something doesn’t make it so, and you would also know that you are engaging what can only be called magical thinking. Throwing huge piles of money at things does NOT create scientific breakthroughs – if it did, we would all be enjoying fusion power! Money is needed to DEVELOP scientific breakthroughs after they happen, and that is how it has always been. Sometimes the breakthrough happens, but more often it does not which is why you have to pursue *every* avenue simultaneously. A lot of the current green energy ideas are going to turn out to be costly dead ends, that’s just how it goes. No way to know which at this point.
And remember, every dollar you spend on a dead end is a dollar that *can’t* be spent on what you are really going to need to do.
Right now, the science just isn’t there for most of the alternative energy ideas to work. For the ones where the science *is* there, they don’t make economic sense. You can’t change those hard facts by wishing they were different, and you can’t change them by throwing green pieces of paper at them.
And waving your hands and making clever comments doesn’t change those facts, either.
December 1, 2009, 3:18 pmRichard Aubrey says:
wws.
December 1, 2009, 3:25 pmGood lecture, well-organized.
I expect for fun you like to shoot BBs at bowling balls?
zuch says:
Not exactly. The ozone depletion changed the wind patterns in Antarctica from the normal, in such a way as to prevent Antarctic ice from melting as fast. It’s not so much bringing things back to normal, rather it’s two opposing factors that cancel each out in one respect: Antarctic icemelt. Which reduces sea level rise … but actually doesn’t help with global warming; part of the reason for the changed wind patterns is increased radiation in Antarctica … which means a higher heat input overall.
Well, yes. But causing two effects that counteract each other in only one respect is hardly “leav[ing] the f**k alone”.
Cheers,
December 1, 2009, 3:26 pmBlue Neposnet says:
You won’t or don’t understand my point. If we invested in alternative energy decades ago instead of arguing about global warming we would be closer to making those ideas or new ones work.
Instead we keep arguing about this instead of trying to find solutions. The only group that benefits from the incessant argument is the big energy companies. I don’t think that is a coincidence.
If the anti-climate change folks want to have a reasonable discussion about this then they need to explain why they aren’t willing to find a compromise solution. To date, they only offer a solution similar to the one they rail against, “we are absolutely right about this”. Why should I take that extremist position seriously?
December 1, 2009, 3:30 pmDan Weber says:
Greenpeace’s founder has flipped and supported nuclear power, and the guy who was running it just four years ago has also decided to support nuclear power.
I personally know quite a few environmentalists who believe in the harm of CO2 enough that they’ve decided to support nuclear power.
So it seems we are getting there.
December 1, 2009, 3:33 pmMark Buehner says:
Blue- you understand that just because you shovel money and years at a desired technology doesn’t guarantee it will work right? We could spend a trillion dollars and 50 years on time traveling Delorean’s, that doesn’t mean I’m going back to my mom’s prom, right?
NUCLEAR ENERGY. Why are you so steadfastly avoiding the answer we keep giving to your challenge. We HAVE a miracle energy source that is dirt cheap and doesn’t produce CO2, we don’t NEED to invent one. Why don’t you address this?
December 1, 2009, 3:34 pmkdackson says:
Uh-Oh.
It just don’t get any better that this:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j_dt9Bjj5yVV7k1PAyDnVHKvKtgAD9CAM0VG0
December 1, 2009, 3:38 pmcirby says:
Blue Neposnet:
We did. You just didn’t know about it.
Billions of dollars a year, starting during the Carter Administration.
December 1, 2009, 3:39 pmDan Weber says:
Blue, you aren’t providing any falsifiable claims. Saying “alternatives would only work if you spent more money” can never be disproved so it’s not a very useful assertion.
It’s kind of a basic tenet of polite discussion.
December 1, 2009, 3:42 pmwws says:
lol, Richard!
hehe – news just broke that Phil Jones, the CRU director and scientist at the heart of the current scandal has been forced to resign.
The dam is starting to break.
December 1, 2009, 3:42 pmwws says:
Thanks, Cirby. You save me from pointing out that every one of Blueneponset’ talking points are based on nothing but his own lack of knowledge.
December 1, 2009, 3:44 pmRichard Aubrey says:
If non-ozoned gases block UV, that means the UV is absorbed. Then, as you would expect, it’s re-emitted as heat.
December 1, 2009, 3:59 pmIf UV is not absorbed but strikes the ground, it is absorbed and…re-emitted as heat.
Difference is where in the atmospheric column it first shows up as heat and what difference, if any, that makes.
Blue Neposnet says:
They might not work even then. Thanks for politely ignoring the fact that I noted it was a risk. Also, thanks for politely quoting something I never said.
December 1, 2009, 4:00 pmHarryEagar says:
‘If we invested in alternative energy decades ago instead of arguing about global warming we would be closer to making those ideas or new ones work.’
We did spend money on alternative energy in the remote county where I live. Some examples:
1. $10 million to turn grass into low-quality liquid motor fuel. Fail.
2. Several million assessing geothermal. No result.
3. About $250 million for a wind farm, which is built and supplies about 9% of local electricity, before you subtract the amount of petroleum you have to burn when the wind is low.
4. We import ethanol, which costs more than gasoline, to pollute our gasoline, which means we pay more for worse gas.
December 1, 2009, 4:06 pmgeokstr says:
The independent review committee has already been announced, and is composed of individuals whose objectivity, intellectual brilliance, scientific knowledge and integrity are unquestioned: Cheryl (one-piece-of-toilet-paper-per-dump) Crow, Andy (who can we beat up today) Stern, the Governator himself, and the unsinkable Leonardo DiCapria. The chairman has yet to be chosen but must have the unimpeachable objectivity that might be demonstrably earned by someone who has, at minumum, won at least one Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize.
This exhaustive review is expected to take at least twice as long as the OJ jury.
December 1, 2009, 4:17 pmDavid Drake says:
Here’s one compromise I propose:
Raise the federal gasoline tax by at least one dollar/gallon.
It would have at least the following good effects:
1. Cut the use of petroleum.
2. Make alternative energy sources more commercially attractive.
3. Encourage the use of public transportation and freight railroads.
4. Raise federal government revenues by billions of dollars.
All this would be with zero added government cost, bureaucracy, regulatory delay, etc. because the mechanism for collecting the tax is already in place.
December 1, 2009, 4:27 pmMark Buehner says:
You just slapped a very regressive tax on every American. Not a great idea during a recession.
The average American drives 12,000 miles per year- lets say everybody got nice 30mpg cars and managed to cut back driving by 15%- that’s still a new $340 tax on every American from the poorest to the richest, and unless we are going to get into the gasoline subsidy business it will hardest hit the working poor that have to drive to their job (more and more Americans working in cities like San Francisco and NYC where there is work but are too expensive to live in).
December 1, 2009, 4:34 pmRichard Aubrey says:
geo
December 1, 2009, 4:39 pmThe chairman should be an expert in the field and not associated with CRU.
Jones has some spare time just now.
David. Subsidizing something does not make ir more economically attractive. It means that since you’ve already been extorted to pay for some of it, you are now in the position where you have no choice but to pay the rest of it.
And since it’s government and their top-dollar interest groups picking who gets your money, extorted or not, the actual benefits are secondary.
Mikey says:
I’ve heard this proposed before, and although it does have the good points you mention, it would also be tremendously regressive. Would there be some mechanism to blunt the impact on those with lower incomes, for whom an extra dollar a gallon could be a real problem?
December 1, 2009, 4:39 pmPatHMV says:
So Blue N, do you agree that the environmental movement bears responsibility for global warming also because it refused to compromise on alternative energy by ending its opposition to nuclear power?
More broadly, to continue the piling on against your ridiculous “argument,” yes, there is a risk that AGW exists and could possibly lead to catastrophe. So? How great is the risk? Is the risk greater than or lesser than the risk of more people starving to death by drastically increasing the costs of the fuels and other raw materials it takes to produce food in our civilization? Is it greater or lesser than the risk of an asteroid hitting us within the next 10 years? Is it greater or lesser than the risk of a nuclear power plant melt-down, if we increased the number of nuclear power plants 20 fold?
After we quantify the level of risk, in comparison to the myriad other risks all of us face each day, what is the cost to actually fix it, and what are the costs which will be imposed by our failure to fix it (should the risk come to pass), and what are the consequences of diverting the funds required to fix it from other potential uses? For example, let’s hypothesize that it will cost $10 trillion over 20 years to cut the risk of a 1 meter rise in sea level from 90% to 10%. Let’s further hypothesize that if we devoted $500 billion per year to an intense research program, we could cure both AIDS and all cancers within the next 20 years (total cost of $10 trillion over 20 years). Which should we spend the money on? Would you rather we reduce the warming or continue to let the AIDS and cancer patients die?
These decisions are always about resource allocation, and allocating resources to one area means they cannot be allocated to some other area. I realize that your first response will be to use the evil profits from the evil oil companies; I’ll accept that in partial response only if you actually calculate the sum total of evil profits from evil oil companies to provide a ball-park figure of how much total money that would free up (it would, of course, be absurd to think that one can actually eliminate the profits of any sector of the economy, but I’m willing to accept this as a starting point to show that you can do actual research rather than just complain).
December 1, 2009, 4:43 pmAnym_Avey says:
BlueNep,
For the sake of the argument perhaps you could point to some of the alternative energy projects that have been underfunded and propose some areas of compromise that that have been ignored, instead of just insisting that they are “out there”. Otherwise, you’re just writing a MadLib and hoping someone else will inadvertantly cover for your ignorance by filling in the blanks.
Also, try to present that evidence without any more useless twaddle about Big Energy. Unless mankind suddenly adopts a penchant for free-range veganism while freezing in the dark, any entity invested in large-scale energy will make lots of money, period.
December 1, 2009, 4:50 pmJust loving it! says:
It is so much fun watching bozos twist themselves in knots trying to defend the indefensible. Probably practicing to be trial attorneys.
December 1, 2009, 4:56 pmkdackson says:
You need to review the definition of compromise, because what you call a comprimise ain’t.
December 1, 2009, 5:13 pmkdackson says:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/paper-trail/2009/11/30/penn-state-will-investigate-climategate.html
December 1, 2009, 5:19 pmDan says:
This passage shows both Lindzen’s and Adler’s bias on this issue:
Break this down and you can see how Adler is totally biased against policies that seek to address global warming:
Right. No kidding. But Adler/Lindzer takes this obvious statement and jumps to a non-obvious conclusion that betrays bias by assuming that global warming-related policies will be harmful and putting the burden of proof on those seeking to address global warming, rather than the other way around:
Why not say the following instead? (Answer: Because the below formulation fairly balances the burden of proof, while Adler/Lindzen would prefer a bias against policies that seek to address climate change):
The pertinent question is: is any given, specific proposed climate change policy, in the end, likely to provide a net benefit to human welfare compared to not implementing the policy? In evaluating whether the policy is “likely” to have a benefit, we should consider the current weight of the climate science evidence and the potential impact on future welfare — but we should also consider any other positive or negative effects of the policy. “Skeptics” like Adler/Lindzer assume that, absent overwhelming proof that climate change is bad, any proposed policy to address climate change is a bad idea. Why? Why not evaluate the policies on their own merits?
Example Policy: Tax incentives to american companies to develop electric cars. This policy could have numerous benefits besides potentially addressing climate change (improve american competitiveness, reduce air polution, create investment in new battery technology, create longer-lasting automobiles, spark consumer interest thus driving increased economic activity, etc.) Oh, and it might help address climate change, which might be a problem in the future.
Adler/Lindzer – how do you feel about this policy? Do you stick to your bizarre conclusion that we cannot possibly consider this policy until we first prove “whether [climate] effects are likely to be negative, whether the causes or their effects can be prevented, as well as whether it is better to try and prevent such changes or adapt to their likely effects”?
As illustrated by the above example, those who refuse to consider any climate-related policy until there is overwhelming proof of climate catastrophe are clearly serving those biased by interests in maintaining the status quo — as opposed to being interested in “human welfare.” For instance, if you follow the money, there is basically one population that would be seriously against the Electric car incentive: oil companies.
If commenters can think of anyone else who should be against the electric car incentive, please explain who and why — and consider whether their interests align with “human welfare.”
December 1, 2009, 5:36 pmkdackson says:
Dan:
Do you have any idea of who Lindzer is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
Also, it has been my experience that people whose interests align with “human welfare” are usually most interested in the human welfare of only one human – themselves.
I would submit that oil and energy companies have done more for the general “human welfare” than those who would dismantle industrial society.
So, unless you are prepared to forgo the use of electricity and fossil fuels, why don’t you reconsider before you tell me what’s in my interest.
December 1, 2009, 5:44 pmkdackson says:
Sorry, pal. If you are proposing that AGW is a serious problem, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that it is. Those of us happy with the status quo need to be convinced.
We have no need to disprove your theories.
December 1, 2009, 5:47 pmwfjag says:
kdackson says:
Dang you kdackson. Here I am happily ironing my “Got Ilk” T-shirt to wear tomorrow, and then you say something that makes me want to go join CO2 Anonymous.
December 1, 2009, 5:58 pmDan Weber says:
Surname-less Dan, I think your restatement is totally reasonable, but I don’t notice a big shift from what Lindzen said, so I may be missing something relevant to your argument.
We should know “how bad is it to raise global temperatures by 1 degree?”, even if the answer is “it’s actually good.” There will be big error bars, of course, but we can still proceed knowing this.
This goes a lot towards figuring out what an optimum temperature is. It also lets us know how hard we should try to aim for that temperature, as opposed to adapting to it. (See PatHMV’s point that we might be better off spending money on AIDS research than on influencing climate temperatures.)
December 1, 2009, 6:05 pmDan says:
kdackson:
Uh, no. I never proposed anything of the sort.
First, I clearly said that I agree with Lindzen that whether climate change is caused by humans or not is basically irrelevant. (Your focus on “AGW” shows that you are hung up on this irrelevancy.)
Second, I said that “whether or not it’s a serious problem,” the pertinent question is whether a given policy is likely to provide a net benefit. Do you disagree? If so, on what basis?
Third, you criticize me for pointing to “human welfare” as a yardstick. That is a quote I lifted directly from the OP. You say:
So clearly, you believe this about Lindzen — it is him who is pointing to “human welfare” in the OP. He said: “We must also determine whether human welfare is at greater risk from climate change or proposed climate change policies …”
If you think that Lindzen is such a fool for focusing on human welfare, perhaps you would prefer a different yardstick to measure whether a policy is a good idea or not. What do you suggest?
December 1, 2009, 6:17 pmBlue Neponset says:
Thank you for the response. Sorry for lumping you in with those not willing to compromise on this issue.
December 1, 2009, 6:18 pmDan says:
Dan Weber:
Do we have to know the answer to this question before considering or implementing any policy vaguely climate-related? What about policies that may have significant positive effects unrelated to climate? Should all those policies be put on hold until we have an answer to this question? What if it is impossible to answer this question reliably?
Why not judge each policy on its own merits, acknowledging the uncertainty of the climate issue, rather than refusing to consider any policy until we have clear proof that climate change is bad? It just seems like an irrational requirement used to block policies that have many potential benefits regardless whether climate change is harmful or not.
December 1, 2009, 6:25 pmRichard Aubrey says:
I suppose you could hypothesize that anything is a “threat”.
December 1, 2009, 6:28 pmThen you’d have to demonstrate that it is likely to happen, have evidence that it or its preceding events are happening.
We know AGW is such a threat. The evidence is so thin that the CRU was at pains to figure out how to hide evidence of cooling.
Threats have two components: How bad is it? How likely is it?
AGW can’t even be shown to be a threat–see MWP–and its likelihood is itself threatened by the very cooling CRU was turning itself inside out to hide.
On the other hand, we’re told we have to suck up the catastrophe of various international actions–which are both likely and quite bad–in order to avoid that which is shown to be unlikely and which can’t even be shown to be bad. Since we’re told we all have to do our part, all have to accept sacrifices, there must be something negative.
For what?
ray_g says:
“Also, it has been my experience that people whose interests align with “human welfare” are usually most interested in the human welfare of only one human — themselves.”
As H.L Mencken said “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it.”
December 1, 2009, 6:29 pmDan says:
Richard Aubrey:
If this is true, then of course it would be absurd.
Everyone posting here seems to focus on the second half of your sentence.
Turn it around: tell me what “international actions” will create a “catastrophe” that is “both likely and quite bad.” Name these “actions” and tell me why these actions will have a negative, rather than positive effect– even assuming that climate change does not exist.
(Note: To show something is “negative” requires more than saying it “costs money.” My iPod cost money but created a net beneficial effect for me.)
December 1, 2009, 6:37 pmkdackson says:
Surnameless Dan:
If GW is caused by human activity, then it may be possible to modify human activity to reduce the threat.
If GW is NOT caused by human activity, then it stands to reason that anything humans do will be ineffective.
So the issue is most definitely the existence of AGW. If it does not exist, then there is no action to take. If it does exist, then the question becomes “how important is it?”
If the importance is low, there is no need to take action. If the importance is high, then what are the best actions to take to mitigate it?
Now, according to one (almost certainly discredited by now) school of thought, burning of fossil fuels is increasing CO2 to sufficiently high levels to cause concern, then we should be maybe consider to reduce CO2 emissions.
Another school of thought is that water vapor is the controlling factor. If that is truly the case then the burning of fossil fuels has minimal to no impact on water vapor levels. Therefore, nothing needs to be done.
However, there is the alternative hypothesis – that global temperature fluctuations are governed by global and solar processes and that human activity is too small to matter. Therefore nothing needs to be done.
So, there is a sufficiently high level of confidence that suggest the correct course of action is to do nothing. The cost of which is nothing.
December 1, 2009, 6:45 pmJohn Moore says:
This raises a typical warmist shibboleth – hey, our policies are great with or without climate change, so you should adopt them.
The problem with this argument is that it derives from the supposition that the polices are good for climate change, and is then tacked on afterwards. It is not an honest argument.
If policies are good irregardless of climate impact, then they should be discussed outside of the climate impact frame. For example, many have argued that a tax or tariff on oil would be a good idea – simply for national security reasons. That’s fine, and should be debated on that ground.
However, too often, the environmental nostrums are sexed up with claims that they will “save money” or “create jobs” or whatever. On balance, those claims are almost always very, very wrong.
December 1, 2009, 6:46 pmkdackson says:
I kind of figured it was not an original thought. But then again, I am an engineer and not as widely read as I would like to be.
December 1, 2009, 6:52 pmRichard Aubrey says:
Dan.
December 1, 2009, 6:56 pmHigher taxes for…what?
Enormous opportunities for graft.
Billions, or trillions, to tropical nations because they claim damage due to the warmists’ fantasies. Might as well send the stuff to Zurich and cut out the middle man.
Restrictions on travel and reductions of national sovereignty.
Restrictions on energy use except for the elites–see Congress and their “opt out” in the health care fiasco.
Now, I suppose you’ll want me to explain why these are bad.
Forget it. We both know it and my refusing to spend my time explaining what you already know means nothing except that I refuse to be baited.
Dan says:
kdackson:
Quick! Spot the logical fallacy. Here’s a hint: My dog shit in the yard. I cleaned it up. The dog shit was not caused by human activity. But as a human, I was still able to fix it! Imagine that.
John Moore:
Oh, OK. I’ll take your word for it then. So we should reject, out of hand, any policies that may “save money” or “create jobs”? Or do you agree that we might want to take the crazy step of actually evaluating the policies?
December 1, 2009, 7:13 pmDavid Schwartz says:
That sounds pretty likely to be bad to me, for a variety of reasons. First, it will wind up diverting a lot of resources towards producing cars that nobody wants and that we have no existing grid to support. These cars will probably wind up being powered off coal indirectly, so there likely will be no net carbon reduction.
To the extent such investments already make sense, they are already being made. Worse, big automakers with losses to offset will likely be able to make the most use of these tax incentives, drawing talent and investment away from smaller niche companies that actually might make electric cars that have a chance in the market. (You can’t imagine how often these guys hear “there’s no point because X is building an electric car and they have billions”.)
And, of course, it will make the deficit worse. Sounds like an all-around loser to me. The government can’t invest usefully in this way because to invest you have to pick the probable winners.
December 1, 2009, 7:20 pmkdackson says:
OK Dan, you have proven yourself a troll.
Or are we to infer from your example that GW is nothing but dog shit?
December 1, 2009, 7:27 pmDan Weber says:
No, not completely. I think it’s okay to proceed even if we aren’t 100% sure. I think there is a reasonable chance of AGW being true and that in the short-term we should implement modest carbon taxes.
If we don’t know the results of our actions, we can still proceed.
Not necessarily. Perhaps our actions up until now has had no effect, but it would well be that new action we take could improve the situation. Think geo-engineering.
December 1, 2009, 8:07 pmgeokstr says:
Note that Blue N did not address nuclear power. I doubt if he will either, given that on every thread about AGW I bring it up and the left never even mentions it, won’t touch it with a stick. It’s like they think it will affect their ability to have children or something, even if they just type the word.
December 1, 2009, 8:43 pmRichard Aubrey says:
I’ll do a small picture of a “solution”.
December 1, 2009, 9:25 pmAs I mentioned elsewhere, there’s a movement to put a couple of wind turbines near a bunch of homes in our township.
Problem is that wind turbines are unlikely to make back the energy it took to make them over their service life. So, under the best of circumstances, it’s a net energy loss, not considering anything else.
The locals, including me, get the benefit of noise, ice throw, habitat damage, wildlife damage, reduced property values and a really big hunk of industrial machinery looking in our living room window.
According to the preliminary plan, the scheme isn’t going to be run under the best of circumstances, so it will be a serious net energy loss.
But $15 million will change hands. That’s $15 million of tax money for nothing except the benefit of those along the money trail.
For a net loss of energy.
And they’re meeting at Copenhagen to multiply that by a million.
Great news.
John Moore says:
Dan says:
Well, let’s see here… which policies would those be? Would people be talking about building windmills if it wasn’t for AGW? How about solar systems?
Nope. The eocnomics on those policies are beyond pathetic.
Clue: The market is usually right about investments (especially when government isn’t diddling it say, with mortgage madness). There is a huge amount of money right now just itching to be invested in something that will make a profit. If windmills or electric cars or battery technology or whatever can make a profit without government meddling, then they will attract funding.
As it is, the funding is so tainted by hopes of rent seeking from government subsidies that the market signals have been lost.
So no, the policies have been looked at and found wanting.
A policy I do support is continued research in those areas that won’t attract corporate funding because they are too basic. It turns out, though, that corporations are investing their mad-money (low probability of payoff risky investment stuff) in all sorts of stuff related to alternative energy, in the hopes that something profitable may turn up – but again, mostly in the hope that they will be able to make money off of government subsidies or other meddling.
December 1, 2009, 11:43 pmjuris imprudent says:
BN rosily dreams If we invested in alternative energy decades ago instead of arguing about global warming we would be closer to making those ideas or new ones work.
You’ve never taken a physics class in your life, have you?
I also note that you have not said a word in favor of expanded nuclear power generation – but you are all over “alternative” energy. I think I know what kind of ilk that makes you.
December 2, 2009, 12:54 amMark Buehner says:
I did spot the logical fallacy- its the idea that if CO2 is not causing the observed global warming, that cutting CO2 will stop global warming.
December 2, 2009, 9:14 amricky says:
Mark, give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is advocating more sensible anti-warming policies, like blocking out the Sun.
December 2, 2009, 12:18 pmHarryEagar says:
Dan sez: ‘Why not judge each policy on its own merits’
I’m willing. Let’s start a petition to call off the Copenhagen meeting. Are you down with me on that?
December 2, 2009, 12:50 pmDan Weber says:
You joke, but if we decide that we would rather be cooler, it makes sense to consider methods of blocking sunlight. Sulfates in the upper atmosphere, for example. It may be cheaper to just emit CO2 and also emit sulfates to keep us at a stable temperature.
Scott Sumner talked about this a lot a few weeks ago.
December 2, 2009, 1:06 pmEnrique Kranz says:
I’m really glad I discovered this post. I’ve been scouring the web for information on solar energy for ages.Looking forward to reading through more posts about energy.
March 30, 2010, 3:50 pm