Coyote Blog

From Randal O'Toole (of course). I usually try not to over-excerpt other folks work but I just can't resist in this case.  I like Mr. O'Toole's work on transit because he does not just focus on the cost-benefit issues, but the personal liberty aspects as well:

My testimony focused on two points. First, despite increasing transit subsidies by 1250 percent (adjusted for inflation) since 1970, transit travel has declined from 49 to 45 trips per urban resident and transit's share of urban travel has declined from 4.0% to 1.6%. Second, even if we could get more people to ride transit, transit uses as much energy, and emits nearly as much greenhouse gases, as cars; and the trends suggest that cars will be more environmentally friendly than any transit system in the country by 2025.

There were two interesting responses to my testimony. First, another witness said (and I'm quoting from memory), "All he did was divide total greenhouse gas emissions by passenger miles." A reporter told me later that it sounded like he was questioning my methods, but his real argument was that more money spent on transit in combination with smart-growth land-use planning would lead to reduced auto driving.

I don't believe that is true (and said so), but even if it were true: can you imaging AT&T (back when all phones were land lines) telling Congress, "We want you to restrict property rights, drive up housing prices, and prevent people from living in their preferred lifestyles so that we don't have to extend our lines so far?" Or FedEx or UPS saying the same thing today? Why is transit so special that everyone else in the country has to completely rearrange their lives just for it?

You can say the answer is "climate change," but transit agencies and smart-growth planners wanted to do all these things before climate was an issue. The truth is that transit is a declining but politically powerful industry, and part of its power comes from the fact that it is publicly owned and so elected officials have a vested interest in keeping it going.

In a very real sense, transit is just like the British coal, rail, and other nationalized industries in the 1960s: its main purpose is no longer transportation but to meet other political goals such as keeping transit workers employed and construction contracts going to transit builders. If transit were private, no one would argue that we have to make the world less convenient and more expensive for the 95 percent of people who travel by car so that it will be more convenient for the 1 or 2 percent who travel by transit.

Indur Goklany (pdf) has deconstructed the IPCC climate forecasts and models and finds something interesting -- for all the forecasts of catastrophe, it is hard to find it in the actual IPCC numbers  (vs. off-the-cuff statements by folks like Al Gore).

First, one needs to understand the basis for the various scenarios crafted by the IPCC.  I will leave some out, and focus on Goklany's analysis of just two - the IPCC A1F1 and B1 scenarios.  (the charts below have been edited to simplify them to just these two scenarios)

One can think of A1F1 being close to a "do nothing" scenario on CO2, what is often called a Richer but Warmer scenario.  The B1 scenario represents fairly large interventions in Co2 use and investments in energy technologies, with lower CO2 concentrations and as a result lower but still positive GDP growth  (it takes only a small change in GDP growth to result in large changes in GDP 80 years hence -- the miracle of compounding).  This is the cooler but poorer scenario.  I know the Left has a fantasy that climate legislation is somehow an economic engine, but most economists on this reality plane achnowlege a tradeoff between CO2 intervention and economic growth.

Goklany collates the impact on mortality from these two scenarios in the IPCC report:

Note that I am not even bothering to quibble with the IPCC numbers, which I could.  I have written plenty that these temperature increase forecasts are based on assumptions of positive feedback in the climate that make little sense.  Further, it makes little sense that the poorer and less advanced world in B1 would have lower base mortality than the richer, more advanced world.

Nevertheless, we can make three observations:

• The difference in mortality from "do nothing" to "strong intervention" is small, and I would suspect hardly statistically significant
• The improvement in mortality from advancing technology and wealth from the 1990 baseline dwarfs the effects of climate change
• The mortality improvements from massive focus on climate change are trivial compared to those that could be achieved with much less expensive focus on other issues.

Hat tip to Watts Up With That, who has more here in a guest essay by Goklany.

In a post on letting GM fail, I discussed what I called "corporate DNA"

A corporation has physical plant (like factories) and workers of various skill levels who have productive potential.  These physical and human assets are overlaid with what we generally shortcut as "management" but which includes not just the actual humans currently managing the company but the organization approach, the culture, the management processes, its systems, the traditions, its contracts, its unions, the intellectual property, etc. etc.  In fact, by calling all this summed together "management", we falsely create the impression that it can easily be changed out, by firing the overpaid bums and getting new smarter guys.  This is not the case - Just ask Ross Perot. You could fire the top 20 guys at GM and replace them all with the consensus all-brilliant team and I still am not sure they could fix it.

All these management factors, from the managers themselves to process to history to culture could better be called the corporate DNA.  And DNA is very hard to change. ...

Corporate DNA acts as a value multiplier.  The best corporate DNA has a multiplier greater than one, meaning that it increases the value of the people and physical assets in the corporation....Every company that has ever grown rapidly has had a DNA that provided a multiplier greater than one... for a while.

But things change.  Sometimes that change is slow, like a creeping climate change, or sometimes it is rapid, like the dinosaur-killing comet.  DNA that was robust no longer matches what the market needs, or some other entity with better DNA comes along and out-competes you. When this happens, when a corporation becomes senescent, when its DNA is out of date, then its multiplier slips below one.  The corporation is killing the value of its assets.  Smart people are made stupid by a bad organization and systems and culture.  In the case of GM, hordes of brilliant engineers teamed with highly-skilled production workers and modern robotic manufacturing plants are turning out cars no one wants, at prices no one wants to pay.

This seems to match the take of many insiders.

To John Shook, a former Toyota manager who worked at a joint-venture plant run by the Japanese company and GM in Fremont, California, that explains why the two automakers are in such different shape today. When it comes to engineering and manufacturing, Shook says, Toyota and GM are about equal. Where they differ is in their corporate cultures.

"Toyota is built on trial and error, on admitting you don't know the future and that you have to experiment," Shook said. "At GM, they say, "˜I'm senior management. There's a right answer, and I'm supposed to know it.' This makes it harder to try things."

The whole Bloomberg article this comes from is quite good.  Its pretty clear that GM had every reason to anticipate the current mess 3-4 years ago, and basically fiddled while the cash burned.  My strongest reaction from the article was, please let me have an epitaph better than this one:

Wagoner, a 31-year GM veteran, was the embodiment of its culture, an apostle of incremental change. Exciting as a Saturn, quotable as an owner's manual....

A month or two back, I was participating in the California Regional Council of Rural Counties annual meeting.  At this conference, I was there to have a sort of informal debate on climate change with Joe Nation, a former California State legislator and currently a private consultant on climate issues.

To some extent my role was frustrating for the audience, because they were already stuck with complying with California's AB32 (a sort of state CO2 cap and trade system) and arguing that such legislation was pointless only served to upset them  (my presentation, both in powerpoint and video is here).  By the way, we often lump "government" together, but I can tell you that while the governor and the legislature of California may be 100% behind CO2 alarmism, the county commissioners were very sympathetic to the skeptic position.

Anyway, towards the end of my presentation I made a plea for a carbon tax over cap-and-trade, and said in fact that California's AB32 was living proof of my argument.  The California Air Resources Board (CARB), which is tasked with implementing the plan, has already added hundreds of people to its staff and worked for over two years, is still no where near finished with rule-making.  The complexity, and the battling political constituencies, is simply mind-boggling.  It is already clear that the result is going to be a Byzantine, Rube Goldberg structure of detailed industry-specific reporting and permitting rules.  Nearly 100% of CARB's time is taken up today with various groups running to them begging for some sort of special treatment (think "carbon bailout" and you will get the idea).  No one thinks the process is fair or rational.

Under cap-and-trade, every single industry will report greenhouse gasses, have industry and firm-specific limits, myriads of permits, etc.  For example, we had detailed discussions that day of how cattle flatulence will be treated and measured.  The alternative is a carbon tax, which is dead simple.  There is one single rate to set - the tax per weight of carbon in fuel.  Fuels with more carbon per BTU, like coal, thereby get higher taxes.  The system works like a sales tax, and could be administered by the BOE (who runs the California sales tax system) in its sleep.

The cap-and-trade system is far more expensive than a carbon tax.  By the basic laws of supply and demand, both systems have to raise the cost of burning certain fuels by about the same amount to get about the same reduction in use.  But the cap-and-trade system brings a huge overhead burden, both in government bureaucracy as well as compliance costs, that make it far, far more expensive for the same amount of benefit.  Until he started sitting on the boards of companies who depend on these inefficiencies in the cap and trade system to make money, Al Gore advocated a straight carbon tax over cap-and-trade.

But we had an opportunity that day.  Because the man who claims to be the author of AB32 is none other than Joe Nation, who was right there in the room.  So we asked him why he took this approach.  Here is what he said, really a civics lesson in one sentence:

I tried pass a carbon tax first, but there was absolutely no support for it among legislators [the same ones who overwhelmingly supported AB32]

If you can understand why this is, you can understand a lot about government.   Because all these concerns that you and I might have about crafting rational public policy are not important to legislators.  Here is how they think about it:

• Private implementation and compliance costs are meaningless to legislators.  There is no public measurement or accountability for these costs, and most of these costs fall on businesses, who can be ignored as unsympathetic in political discourse.  I operate in Mono County, California, and they put out a new set of reporting requirements driven, they said, by the needs to save a few hours a year of their auditors' time.  But compliance with these new rules costs our company 10-20 hours, at least, a year.  And we are just one of many, many companies reporting.  I complained that it was crazy for them to ask taxpayers to spend hundreds of hours of labor to save them just a few, but they could not have cared less.

• For legislators, particularly in California, creating large new bureaucracies is good.  It creates a patronage relationship between the legislators and these new government employees that is almost quasi-feudal.  Public employees are an enormous source of support for incumbent politicians, and these bureaucracies also offer future employment opportunities for legislators once they leave office (nice article here).

• First, last, and always, the vast majority of politicians are gutless.  That means if they can pass the same tax in a way that is more hidden (ie cap-and-trade vs. carbon tax) they will prefer this approach, even if it means the tax is substantially less efficient.  In the case of cap-and-trade, since costs are hidden and spread around like peanut butter rather than easily identifiable, they can pretend the costs don't exist and, if someone starts worrying about rising electricity costs that result, simply blame the rising costs on the evil power/oil/coal/etc companies.  Obama has brilliantly taken this one step further, by outrageously claiming, in the broken windows fallacy of all time, that cap-and-trade will actually boost the economy through green job creation.

• A carbon tax gives politicians very little room to extract personal value from the electorate.  Really, there is only one number for everyone to argue over.  But cap-and-trade is a Disneyland for lobbyists.  There can be special exemptions, industry specific caps, firm-specific caps, geography-specific caps.  Once everyone sees the first few guys giving campaign donations and parading into CARB for special treatment, everyone feels like they have to in order to avoid being the one guy left out.  My guess is that cap-and-trade will spawn more lobbying than any other legislation in US history.  And politicians, no matter what their public stance, love lobbying, because everyone who comes to ask them for something knows there has to be a quid pro quo.

Update:  A number of related thoughts and posts here, at Reason.

This article from Climate Resistance about the sustainability movement is terrific.  I want to excerpt a relatively long chunk of it:

It is our belief that Oxfam's increasingly shallow campaigns reflect the organisation's difficulty in understanding development and poverty, and the relationship between them. In other words, it seems to have lost its purpose. This is a reflection of a wider political phenomenon, of which the predominance of environmentalism is a symptom. We seem to have forgotten why we wanted development in the first place. It is as if the lifestyles depicted in Cecil's painting were to be aspired to, were there just a little more rain. Development is a bad thing. It stops rain.

If we were to add a city skyline into the background of Cecil's painting it might ask a very different question of its audience. Why are people living like that, with such abundance in such proximity? Of course, in reality, many miles separate the two women from any such city, but the question still stands; there is abundance in the world, and there is the potential for plenty more. Yet Oxfam have absorbed the idea from the environmental movement that there isn't abundance. This changes the relationship between development and poverty from one in which development creates abundance into one in which development creates poverty; it deprives people of subsistence. But really, the city (not) behind the two women could organise the infrastructure necessary to irrigate the parched landscape, the delivery of fertiliser, and a tractor. The field could be in full bloom, in spite of the weather. The two women could be wealthy.

Oh no, says Oxfam. That's not sustainable....

The myth of sustainability is that it is sustainable. The truth is that drought and famine have afflicted the rural poor throughout history "“ before climate change was ever used to explain the existence of poverty. Limiting development to what "˜nature' provides therefore makes people vulnerable to her whims. Drought is "˜natural'. Famine is "˜natural'. Disease is "˜natural'. They are all mechanisms which, in the ecologist's lexicon are nature's own way of ensuring "˜sustainability'. They are checks and balances on the dominance of one species. To absorb what Hitler called "˜the iron logic of nature' is to submit to injustice, if famine, drought and disease characterise it. We can end poverty, but not by restricting development. Yet that seems to be Oxfam's intention. That is why we criticise it.

Hat tip:  Tom Nelson.

Apparently 6 vandals who cause $60,000 damage to a power plant in England were acquitted solely on the argument that they were helping stop global warming -- in other words, they admitted their vandalism, but said it was in a higher cause.

It's been a pretty unusual ten days
but today has been truly extraordinary. At 3.20pm, the jury came back
into court and announced a majority verdict of not guilty! All six defendants - Kevin, Emily, Tim, Will, Ben and Huw - were acquitted of criminal damage.

To recap on how important this verdict is: the defendants
campaigners were accused of causing £30,000 of criminal damage to
Kingsnorth smokestack from painting. The defence was that they had 'lawful excuse' - because they were acting to protect property around the world "in immediate need of protection" from the impacts of climate change, caused in part by burning coal.

So the testimony centered not on whether they actually vandalized the power plant - they never denied it - but on whether the criminals were correct to fear global warming from power plants.  I don't know much about British law, but this seems to be a terrible precedent.  Or maybe not - does this mean that I can go and legally vandalize every Congressman's house for wasting my money?

This is cross-posted from Climate-Skeptic, but it is very much in the spirit of the Canadian tribunals and University speech codes.  There are increasing efforts, mainly on the left, to make the world a better place by limiting speech of those who don't agree with them.

Cross-Posted From Climate Skeptic. 

In
1497, Savonarola tried to end the Italian Renaissance in a massive pyre
of books and artwork (the Bonfire of the Vanities).  The Renaissance
was about inquiry and optimism, neither of which had much appeal to
Savonarola, who thought he had all the answers he needed in his
apocalyptic vision of man.  For him, how the world worked, and
particularly the coming apocalypse, was "settled science" and any
questioning of his world view was not only superfluous, it was evil.

It is an indicator of the power of the state that most CEO's of public companies feel the need to pay lip service to every politically correct trend that comes along and to engage in outright sycophancy every time they meet with politicians.  The reason, unfortunately, is that morons like Maxine Waters have been granted nearly unlimited powers over commerce.  Some CEOs unfortunately go even further, going beyond just humoring politicians to play the game themselves, engaging in outright rent-seeking for themselves and their shareholders.

So it is in this context that it is nice to see the CEO of Exxon-Mobil continuing in that company's traditions of not rolling over to populist political pressure:

Rex Tillerson, chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp.,
the world's largest oil-and-gas company, came out swinging Wednesday
against the environmental movement, arguing the science of climate
change is far from settled and that his company views it as its
"corporate social responsibility" to continue to supply the world with
fossil fuels....

Avoiding the political correctness that many oil executives are now
showing on global warming, Mr. Tillerson called for a continuation of
the debate, rather than acceptance that it is occurring, with the
potential consequence that governments will implement policies that put
world economies at risk.

"My view is that this is so extraordinarily important to people the
world over, that to not have a debate on it is irresponsible," he said.
"To suggest that we know everything we need to know about these issues
is irresponsible.

"And I will take all the criticism that comes with it. Anybody that
tells you that they got this figured out is not being truthful. There
are too many complexities around climate science for anybody to fully
understand all of the causes and effects and consequences of what you
may chose to do to attempt to affect that. We have to let scientists to
continue their investigative work, unencumbered by political
influences. This is too important to be cute with it."

Mr. Tillerson said Exxon Mobil, despite its reputation as a staunch
climate change denier, is in fact close to the issue as the only oil
company that is a member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change.

Exxon Mobil came under repeated attack during the rowdy meeting for
not showing leadership to combat global warming, with some arguing it
is putting shareholders' capital at risk by not moving into greener
energy.

Among the many critics who stood up in the city's Morton H. Meyerson
Symphony Centre, where the meeting was held, was Neva Rockefeller
Goodwin, the great-granddaughtger of John D. Rockefeller, who founded
Exxon's predecessor 125 years ago.

But her proposal to have Exxon Mobil prepare a report on the impact
of climate change on emerging countries and to embrace greener energy
was backed by only 10.4% of shareholders.

The Exxon shareholder meeting is a zoo.  LIttle serious work gets done.  There are about a zillion people who buy one share of stock so they can show up and flog whatever political hobby horse they have.  I do wish I had been there, though, so that in response to Ms. Goodwin's proposal I could have in turn asked for a report on how alarmist-proposed 80% reductions in fossil fuel consumption would have impacted poverty and progress in developing countries. 

A while back I had observed that Wal-Mart had passed Exxon as the left's #1 Satan.  It is good to see Exxon back on top. 

I want to thank Tom Nelson for the pointer, because I usually don't hang out much at the Socialist Unity site.  But I thought that this post was telling.

While it may be urgent that we create a red green alliance to
strengthen radical social action to stop climate change, our collective
problem is how are we going to do that?

The Climate Change Social Change Conference
held in Sydney Australia during April tried to tackle that
challenge.This was a bold attempt to bring together left and green
activists in order to locate a shared perspective around which we could
begin more consciously organize....

Foster and Perez urged the conference's participants to consider
socialism as the only viable solution to the climate emergency. This
was a persistent theme discussed throughout the three day event as
speakers were drawn from a range of environment movements and
organisations (such as the Australian Greens and Friends of the Earth)
as well as academic specialists "” who preferred solution packages which
were not consciously committed to a socialist transformation of
society..

It may really be a new era, when markets rather than command-and-control government allocations and restrictions are advocated by progressives to allocate scarce resources.  In this case, the argument is especially surprising, since it is arguing for more open water markets.  For some reason, water is the last place anyone seems to want to apply pricing signals, something I have written on many times.

There are clear gains from having an active market in water rights. It
would help solve the problems posed by current water shortages in the
West, and it would provide the flexibility necessary to confront the
impact of climate change on water supplies in the coming decades. It
would be, in a word, fluid.

Via Tom Nelson comes this interview with climate "scientist" Dr. Kate Rawles:

Greenbang: What do you think is wrong with the debate on climate change?

Dr Kate: It hasn't really got to grips with the fundamental problem,
which is that Western, industrialised lifestyles are literally
unsustainable. Climate change is just one symptom of this. WWF famously
calculated that if everyone on earth were to enjoy the lifestyle of an
average Western European, we would need three planet earths.

Not even the most optimistic believers in technology think that we
can technofix this problem so that 6 billion people (let alone the
projected 9 billion) can enjoy a western lifestyle without ecological
meltdown. It follows that we urgently need to rethink what we currently
mean by a "˜high standard of living' and move away from materialistic
versions of this to an understanding of quality of life that could be
enjoyed by everyone, without causing environmental mayhem. This is
about values, not just about technology.

To a large extent, understanding the passion of climate alarmists is a chicken and egg problem.  Normally, scientists identify a problem and then we seek to solve it.  But, as you can see with this woman, climate science works in reverse.  The debate began with people who believed that technology and economic growth needed to be diminished, and then found global warming as a conveniently manufactured "problem" that pointed to their already preferred solution. 

This, by the way, is her complete answer to the question about what is wrong with climate debate.  You can see her answer to this climate science question has nothing to do with climate, but everything to do with her pro-poverty position.  She actually states her position as anti-western-standard-of-living, because that plays better with the soccer moms, but this is exactly the same as pro-poverty.  And get a load of this great scientist quoting WWF advocacy press releases as if they were peer-reviewed science.

By the way, I personally believe that the world could easily sustain 6 billion people in a western standard of living, and love humanity enough to root for this to occur, so here statement is untrue  (by the way, why are people who advocate for universal poverty like this person considered "sensitive" while folks like me who would love to see all the world wealthy considered evil and cold-hearted?)  I don't know exactly how this will happen, but if I stood in the year 1908 I would not know how (or probably believe) even a single person could  enjoy what we call a western standard of living today, but billions do.  The human mind is a wonderful thing, and can achieve a lot, at least when scientists pursue new possibilities rather than simply shrieking that we need to turn the clock back.

Update:  Here is one faulty assumption she is making:

Current levels of consumption in industrialised societies are too high
- as the three planet earth analysis clearly shows. This presents a
major problem for current economic thinking, which is premised on
growth, and which requires us all to keep consuming more, not less.
Clearly we can't grow infinitely, and consume infinitely, on a finite
planet.

Her assumption is that the Earth is somehow at capacity.  How do we know that?  If a scientist bases all of her beliefs on an assumption like this that has never been proven and the scientist is perfectly comfortable taking on faith, can we really call her a scientist?  Or do we call her a religionist? 

Fortunately, after years of skeptics trying to warn folks about this, the global warming folks are doing us the favor of being honest about their goals.  From the catalog description for the book "The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy."

In this provocative book, Shearman and Smith present evidence that the
fundamental problem causing environmental destruction--and climate
change in particular--is the operation of liberal democracy. Its flaws
and contradictions bestow upon government--and its institutions, laws,
and the markets and corporations that provide its sustenance--an
inability to make decisions that could provide a sustainable society.
Having argued that democracy has failed humanity, the authors go even
further and demonstrate that this failure can easily lead to
authoritarianism without our even noticing. Even more provocatively,
they assert that there is merit in preparing for this eventuality if we
want to survive climate change. They are not suggesting that existing
authoritarian regimes are more successful in mitigating greenhouse
emissions, for to be successful economically they have adopted the
market system with alacrity. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that an
authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be
governance by experts and not by those who seek power. There are in
existence highly successful authoritarian structures--for example, in
medicine and in corporate empires--that are capable of implementing
urgent decisions impossible under liberal democracy. Society is verging
on a philosophical choice between "liberty" or "life."

By the way, for a description of why this technocratic fascism by the experts never works, read here.  By the way, when you see this...

Nevertheless, the authors conclude that an
authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be
governance by experts and not by those who seek power.

...it means "We support fascism as long as we are the fuhrer." 

Get ready, because global warming will soon be an excuse for government micro-management of any number of everyday behaviors.  We have already seen California's attempt to have the government take control of your home thermostat.  In England, the target is patio heaters:

Britain's growing café culture and taste for alfresco drinking and
dining may be under threat from MEPs who want to ban the patio heater.

A
vote in Brussels today is expected to call on the European Commission
to abolish the heaters to help to tackle climate change. Such a move
could cost the pub and catering trade dear.

Pubs spent about £85
million on patio heaters after the smoking ban was introduced last
year. Besides forcing smokers into the cold there is concern that a ban
on patio heaters could bring a significant cash loss to pubs, cafés and
restaurants.

By the way, something not mentioned in the article, perhaps because it takes a knowledge of actual science and stuff, is that these heaters tend to burn LPG and propane, which due to their molecular structure produce far less CO2 per BTU than other fossil fuels.

One is left to wonder what pareto-style ranking of CO2 reduction opportunities put patio heaters at the top of the list.  In fact, there is no possible rational analysis that would make this a legislative priority.  It is a great illustration of two points about such technocratic endeavors:

1. Government cannot correct supposed market irrationalities because governments always act more irrational than private players in the market, no matter who is in charge.
2. Most legislation supposedly to fight global warming is using global warming as a fig leaf to hide the actual reason for the legislation.  My guess in this case is that the sponsors of this legislation have some other reason for wanting the ban, but dress it up as global warming.  This mirrors the larger issues, there socialists, unrepentant Ehrlich admirers,  and anti-globalization loonies have repackaged themselves as fighting global warming and then, surprise, proposed the same government actions they were pushing for pre-global-warming-hysteria.

Our (mostly free) society has survived many challenges.  But will it be able to withstand gentlemen like this waving around immensely flawed climate science:

Liberal democracy is sweet and addictive and indeed in the most
extreme case, the USA, unbridled individual liberty overwhelms many of
the collective needs of the citizens. The subject is almost sacrosanct
and those who indulge in criticism are labeled as Marxists, socialists,
fundamentalists and worse. These labels are used because alternatives
to democracy cannot be perceived! Support for Western democracy is
messianic as proselytised by a President leading a flawed democracy

There must be open minds to look critically at liberal democracy.
Reform must involve the adoption of structures to act quickly
regardless of some perceived liberties. ...

We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions
based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse
emissions. It is not that we do not tolerate such decisions in the very
heart of our society, in wide range of enterprises from corporate
empires to emergency and intensive care units. If we do not act
urgently we may find we have chosen total liberty rather than life.

He has great admiration for how China does things

The [plastic shopping bag] ban in China will save importation and use of five million tons of
oil used in plastic bag manufacture, only a drop in the ocean of the
world oil well. But the importance in the decision lies in the fact
that China can do it by edict and close the factories. They don't have
to worry about loss of political donations or temporarily unemployed
workers. They have made a judgment that their action favours the needs
of Chinese society as a whole.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

By the way, here is a little "tip."  The author says this:

Unfortunately it seems increasingly likely that the IPCC underestimated
the speed of climate change and failed to recognise the likely effect
of a range of tipping points which may now be acting in concert.

I believe that man is having a warming effect on the earth, but that effect is small and non-catastrophic.  There are reasons I may be wrong.  BUT, you should immediately laugh out of the room anyone who talk about "a range of tipping points" in a system like the earth's climate that has been reasonably stable for tens of millions of years.  When used by climate catastrophists, the word "tipping point" means:  Yeah, we are kind of upset the world is not warming nearly as fast as our computer models say it should, so we will build an inflection point about 10 years out into the forecast where the slope of change really ramps up and we will call it a "tipping point" because, um, that is kindof a cool hip phrase right now and make us sound sophisticated and stuff.

Postscript:  Anyone who makes this statement is WELL grounded in reality:

All this suggests that the savvy Chinese rulers may be first out of the blocks to assuage greenhouse emissions

LOLOLOL.  They are building a new coal plant, what, every three days or so in China?

Postscript #2: Quiz for older folks out there:  How long ago was it that environmentalists were encouraging us to use plastic bags over paper because it saved a tree?

HT:  Tom Nelson

New today from the new Australian government, who to date have placed themselves solidly in the catastrophic camp:

PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd last night did an about-face on deep cuts to
greenhouse gas emissions, days after Australia's delegation backed the
plan at the climate talks in Bali.

A government representative at the talks this week said Australia backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020.

But after warnings it would lead to huge rises in electricity prices, Mr Rudd said the Government would not support the target.

The
repudiation of the delegate's position represents the first stumble by
the new Government's in its approach to climate change.

The Question, as asked (surprisingly) by a global warming believer:

One curious aspect of this result is that it
is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that
agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ
significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range
in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5
to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models
used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in
equilibrium sensitivity.

The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2
to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global
temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Kerr
[2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate change"“too rosy a
picture?, available at www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007)
recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this
question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the
current paper provides the "˜"˜widely circulated analysis'' referred to
by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation
for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of
model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model
climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model
sensitivity.

Much more here at Climate Skeptic

I really can't stand to be in New York City for very long.  The crowds, the hassles and the lines all conspire to drive me crazy.  Every second I feel like I am packed around by more people, and I find it horribly claustrophobic.

If your immediate reaction to this statement is to feel like I am attacking you or your lifestyle, you are wrong.  My purpose is not to say that those who love it here in NYC are making an incorrect choice, for they are not.  If they derive energy from the people and the density and all the amenities that density can justify, great.  It is in fact an interesting (and depressing) feature of modern discourse that my saying that I don't personally choose a certain lifestyle is found as threatening to people who do.  Why should it?  My only answer is that this zero-sum statist society of activists has created the expectation that the next step of anyone who expresses a negative preference for something will be to run to the government to get it banned.

The reason I bring my preference up at all is that the vast majority of city planners get a huge hard-on for New York.  Their goal is to turn the world into Manhattan.  They wish to maximize densities and minimize personal automobile use and, well, backyards.  In other words, a bunch of folks who have the ear of the government wish to use the coercive power of the government to turn the world into something I can't live in.  Again, I have no problem with New Yorkers having New York, but why does Scottsdale have to be New York too?

By the way, on a quasi-related topic, the Anti-Planner has an interesting observation:  Supposed gains in sustainability in high-density urban areas have more to do with making everyone poor than with the density  (emphasis added):

Many planning advocates take it for granted that sprawl and auto driving are inherently unsustainable. McShane shows
just how this attitude can go when he describes Halle Neustadt, which
some Swedish urban planners once described as "the most sustainable
city in the world."

McShane here refers to some field work
done by the Antiplanner. To make a long story short, what made Halle
Neustadt "sustainable" was poverty, and as soon its residents gained
some wealth, many of them moved out and most of the rest bought
automobiles, turning the cities many greenspaces into parking lots.

Owen then turns to climate change, which he describes as the last gasp
of smart growth. Smart growth, he notes, "has always been a policy in
search of a justification, a solution in search of a problem." Now, in
climate change, smart-growth advocates hope they have found such a
problem.

One difficulty, McShane notes, is that there is no guarantee that
smart growth is really more greenhouse-friendly than ordinary sprawl.
Depending on load factors, Diesel trains can emit more greenhouse gases
per passenger mile than autos, and concrete-and-steel high-rise condos
can emit more CO2 than wood homes.

McShane refers in particular to an Australian study
that found that "place doesn't matter," that is, low densities were not
particularly greenhouse unfriendly. Instead, income was much more
important, meaning that the high-rollers living in million-dollar
downtown condos were generating far more greenhouse gases than
moderate-income suburbanites.

Which implies that the "solution" to sustainability (whatever that is) and CO2 emissions is to promote poverty.  That may seem like a tongue-in-cheek exaggeration, but in fact the latest IPCC warning on climate relies heavily on the work of Nicholas Stern, who says the solution to global warming is to make western income levels look more like those in India (emphasis added):

Mr Stern, the former chief economist of the World Bank, sends out a
very clear message: "We need to cut down the total amount of carbon
emissions by half by 2050." At current levels, the per capita global
emissions stand at 7 tonnes, or a total of 40-45 gigatonnes. At this
rate, global temperatures could rise by 2.5-3 degrees by then. But to
reduce the per capita emissions by half in 2050, most countries would
have to be carbon neutral. For instance, the US currently has, at 20-25
tonnes, per capita emissions levels that are three times the global
average.

The European Union's emission levels stand at 10-15
tonnes per capita. China is at about 3-4 tonnes per capita and India,
at 1 tonne per capita, is the only large-sized economy that is below
the desired carbon emission levels of 2050. "India should keep it that way and insist that the rich countries pay their share of the burden in reducing emissions," says Mr Stern.

Translation: India should stay poor and the West should become that way.

The Arizona Republic had a stealth hit piece on skeptics in the paper today and, unfortunately, I inadvertently helped.  My kids woke me up at 7:00 this morning (Yuk!) to tell me I was on the front page of the Arizona Republic.  I was quoted a couple of times in an article on climate change skeptics.   I have a couple of thoughts about an article that really has me depressed today.  If you want to know what I really think about climate, see my book and in my movie (both free online).

• After interviews, I am always surprised at what the writers chose to quote, and this article is no exception. 
• I spent most of the article trying to explain this simple data exercise, but I guess newspapers today are science-phobic and would rather write he-said-she-said articles than actually get into the numbers.  Unfortunately, the article leaves the impressions that we skeptics have problems with catastrophic global warming theory  "just because."
• The article is not about the skeptics' position, because it is not really stated.  In fact, more space is spent on refuting skeptics than is even given to skeptics themselves.  Here is the best test:  The skeptic's position would have been better served by not publishing this mess at all.
• Almost my entire discussion with the reporter was about the forecasts.  I said man is causing some warming, but there are simple tests to show it likely won't be catastrophic.  I even said that it was the catastrophists tactic not to argue this point, but to shift the debate to whether warming exists at all, where they have a much stronger argument. Despite this whole discussion with the reporter, the reporter allowed the catastrophists to shift the debate again.  They want to argue whether things are warmer, where they are on strong ground, and not about how much it will warming the future and whether this will justify massive government intervention, where they are on weak ground.

This article really frustrates me, and may pretty much spell the end for my ever giving an interview on the subject again (I will do a podcast on Monday, which I will link soon, but that is different because they can't edit me).  Despite it being an article about skeptics, the catastrophists are the only one that get any empirical evidence whatsoever into the article (however lame it may be).  This really ticked me off in particular:  I spent an hour giving specific empirical reasons why there were problems with forecasts and the theory.  The reporter then just printed a few quotes from me that made me look like an uninformed idiot, saying "just because."  Then they print this:

"There is clearly a group of thought that says because we're not seeing
debate now, it never happened in the scientific community," Huxman
said. "That is simply wrong. It did happen, and it's over. The debate
now is over the idiosyncrasies, the internal workings."

Incredibly, they also credulously reprint the absurd Newsweek ad hominem attacks on skeptics. 

What also got my attention was the companion article on an ASU professor who is a climate skeptic.  Incredibly, in the whole article, not one sentence is dedicated to explaining why the professor is a skeptic.  What is the empirical evidence he relies on, or the analysis he finds most compelling?  We never find out.  All we get is an article on dueling motivations.  For example, the Republic writes:

Despite his notoriety as a hero of the skeptic crowd, Balling's research and lifestyle contain some surprising contradictions.

He is in charge of climate studies at the Decision Center for a Desert
City, an ambitious ASU program that looks at how drought will affect
the Valley.

He's a registered independent and lives a lifestyle that the hardiest environmental activist would recognize as green....

If there was a competition for living green, "put the cards on the
table, and I'll beat 99 percent of the faculty here," Balling said.

He avoids driving and  doesn't own a cellphone.

He would even have liked to see Al Gore win the presidency in 2000.

So?  Why is this surprising?  Should we all naturally expect that skeptics all eat children for dinner?  And, of course, an article on a leading skeptic would not be complete without this:

Critics have assailed Balling's ties to industries.

Balling received more than $679,000 in research funding from
fossil-fuel-industry organizations between 1989 and 2002, according to
figures provided by ASU. He served as a scientific adviser to the
Greening Earth Society, a public-relations organization founded by the
Western Fuels Association to promote the benefits of global warming.

Uh, OK.  Here is a Coyote Blog challenge:  Find me one article in a mainstream newspaper or news weekly that even once checks the sources of funding for climate catastrophists.  This focus on funding and motivation and political affiliation for skeptics only is scandalously asymmetric.  But take a quick look at the article - 85% of it is related to motivation, either how good his green credentials are or how much money he gets from oil companies - and not any discussion of what he actually thinks. 

This final bit is especially funny.  Think of all the wacko professors out there that are warmly accepted by their universities and the academic community.  We're talking about folks all the way up to and including men who have gone to prison for torturing and murdering women.  But apparently having a climate skeptic on the faculty is just too much:

But his climate work has garnered the most national attention, which bothers some colleagues at ASU.

"For ASU, having Balling as such a prominent figure in the climate
debate has been awkward, not so much because of his positions but
because we have lacked scientists of similar stature whose work
supports more widely held, opposing views," Jonathan Fink, director of
ASU's Global Institute of Sustainability, wrote in an e-mail. "Hence we
have been viewed as somewhat of a fringe institution in the world of
climate-change research."

Wow, its terrible to see such ill-repute brought to America's #1 Party School.  And by the way, what the hell kind of strategy is this?  We want to make a name for ourselves in climate research, so to do so we think we should be just like all the other schools -- that's the way to differentiate ourselves!

I will post links to my podcast that is coming up Monday night.  After that, I am not sure.  I am pretty depressed about the state of the media on this issue.  I have a lot of interests and more than enough to do with my time that I may take a break from climate for a while.

From
Megan McArdle:

Matt may be right that I haven't harangued people about climate change
recently, so here goes: dude, if you're still a climate change skeptic, it's
time for a rethink. When the science correspondent for Reason magazine
comes over to the reality of anthropogenic global warming, it's safe to say that
the skeptics have lost the debate. Not only the vast majority of the scientific
community, but even most of the hard-core skeptics at conservative magazines,
have abandonned the hope that we are not warming up the climate.

There's still debate about the effects of the warming, and what we should do
about it. But there's not much question that it's happening.

Duh.  The vision of the skeptic community denying that the world is
warming at all is a straw man created by the climate catastrophists to avoid
arguing about the much more important point in her second paragraph.  What I
can't understand is McArdle's, and many intelligent people I meet, seeming
unintrest in the degree of man-made impact.

The chief debate really boils down to those of us who think that
climate sensitivity to CO2 is closer to 1C (ie the degrees the world will warm
with a doubling of CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels) and those who
think that the sensitivity is 3-5C or more.  The lower sensitivity implies a
warming over the next century of about a half degree C, or about what we saw in
the last century.  The higher numbers represesent an order of magnitude more
warming in the next century.  The lower numbers imply a sea level rise measured
in inches.  The higher numbers imply a rise of 1-2 feet  (No one really know
where Al Gore gets his 20 foot prediction in his movie).  The lower numbers we
might not even notice.  The higher numbers will certainly cause problems.

The other debate is whether the cost of CO2 abatement should even be
considered.  I have talked to many people who say the costs are irrelevant -
Gaia must come first.  But steps to make any kind of dent in CO2 production with
current technologies will have a staggering impact on the world economy.  For
example, there are a billion Asians poised to finally to enter the middle class
who we will likely consign back to poverty with an aggressive CO2 reduction
program.  With such staggering abatement costs, it matters how bad the
effects of man-made global warming will be. 

There are many reasons a 1.0 climate sensivity is far more defensible
than the higher sensitivities used by catastrophists.  My
argument a lower climate sensitivity and therefore a less aggresive posture on
CO2 is here.  Cross-posted at Climate Skeptic.

Update: Sure, we skeptics debate the degree of past warming, but it really can't be denied the earth is warmer than 100 years ago.  The problem catastrophists have with defending their higher climate sensitivities is that these sensitivities imply that we should have seen much more warming over the past 100 years, as much as 1.5C or more instead of about 0.6C.  These scientists have a tendency to try to restate historical numbers to back their future forecast accuracy.  We skeptics fight them on this, but it does not mean we are trying to deny warming at all, just make sure the science is good as to the magnitude.

One other thought - everyone should keep two words in mind vis a vis CO2 and its effect on temperature:  Diminishing Return.  Each new molecule of CO2 has less impact on temperature than the last one.  Only by positing a lot of weird, unlikely, and unstable positive feedbacks in the climate can scientists reach these higher sensitivity numbers (more here).  A good economist would laugh if they understood the assumptions that were being made in the catastrophic forecasts that are being used to influence government action.

I am often asked, "why, if the threat of global warming is really so overstated, does the issue have such legs with politicians, media, and activists?"

Answer:  Because it is the perfect political bludgeon.  One of the reasons I felt like high school debate really was broken (I don't know if it has been fixed since) was because every single debate eventually devolved into which side was more likely to cause a nuclear war.  It didn't matter if you were arguing about energy policy or the presidential primary system, no good debate case stopped short of blaming the other side for nuclear war.

Today, with nuclear weapons mostly forgotten (unfortunately not gone), global warming is the new nuclear war. It doesn't matter what you are arguing about:

There was Clare Short, a member of the British Parliament and Secretary
for International Development under Prime Minister Tony Blair until she
resigned in 2003 over the Iraq war. Claiming that Israel is actually
"much worse than the original apartheid state" and accusing it of
"killing (Palestinian) political leaders," Ms. Short charged the Jewish
state with the ultimate crime: Israel "undermines the international
community's reaction to global warming." According to Ms. Short, the
Middle East conflict distracts the world from the real problem:
man-made climate change. If extreme weather will lead to the "end of
the human race," as Ms. Short warned it could, add this to the list of
the crimes of Israel.

A while back I suggested, part tongue-in-cheek:

Once trees hit their maturity, their growth slows and therefore the
rate they sequester CO2 slows.  At this point, we need to be cutting
more down, not less, and burying them in the ground, either as logs or
paper or whatever.  Just growing forests is not enough, because old
trees fall over and rot and give up their carbon as CO2.  We have to
bury them.   Right?

Now, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore writes:

There is a misconception that cutting down an old tree will result
in a net release of carbon. Yet wooden furniture made in the
Elizabethan era still holds the carbon fixed hundreds of years ago.

Berman,
a veteran of the forestry protest movement, should by now have learned
that young forests outperform old growth in carbon sequestration.

Although
old trees contain huge amounts of carbon, their rate of sequestration
has slowed to a near halt. A young tree, although it contains little
fixed carbon, pulls CO2 from the atmosphere at a much faster rate.

When a tree rots or burns, the carbon contained in the wood is released back to the atmosphere....

To address climate change, we must use more wood, not less. Using wood
sends a signal to the marketplace to grow more trees and to produce
more wood. That means we can then use less concrete, steel and plastic
-- heavy carbon emitters through their production. Trees are the only
abundant, biodegradable and renewable global resource.

James Hansen, NASA climate scientist and lead singer in the climate apocalypse choir, responded to his  temperature data revisions a week ago:

What we have here is a case of dogged contrarians who
present results in ways intended to deceive the public into believing
that the changes have greater significance than reality. They aim to
make a mountain out of a mole hill. I believe that these people are not
stupid, instead they seek to create a brouhaha and muddy the waters in
the climate change story. They seem to know exactly what they are doing
and believe they can get away with it, because the public does not have
the time, inclination, and training to discern what is a significant
change with regard to the global warming issue.

The proclamations of the contrarians are a deceit

Um, whatever.  Remember, this is the man who had large errors in his data set, used by nearly every climate scientist in the world, for years, and which were only recently discovered by Steven McIntyre (whom Hansen refuses to even name in his letter).  These errors persisted for years because Mr. Hansen refuses to allow the software and algorithms he uses to "correct" and adjust the data to be scrutinized by anyone else.  He keeps critical methodologies that are paid for by we taxpayers a secret.  But it is his critics who are deceitful? 

In particular, he is bent out of shape that critics' first presented the new data as a revised ranking of the hottest years rather than as a revised line graph.  But it was Hansen and his folks who made a big deal in the press that 1998 was the hottest year in history.  It was he that originally went for this sound byte rather than the more meaningful and data-rich graph when communicating with the press.  But then he calls foul when his critics mimic his actions?  (Oh, and by the way, I showed it both ways).

Hansen has completely ignored the important lessons from this experience, while focusing like a laser on the trivial.  I explained in detail why this event mattered, and it was not mainly because of the new numbers.  In short, finding this mistake was pure accident -- it was a bit like inferring that the furniture in a house is uncomfortable solely by watching the posture of visitors leaving the house.  That's quite an deductive achievement, but how much more would you learn if the homeowners would actually let you in the house to inspect the furniture.  Maybe its ugly too.

So why does Hansen feel he should be able to shield himself from scrutiny and keep the details of his database adjustments and aggregation methodology a secret?  Because he thinks he is the king.    Just read his letter:

The contrarians will be remembered as court jesters. There is no point
to joust with court jesters. "¦ Court jesters serve as a distraction, a
distraction from usufruct. Usufruct is the matter that the captains
wish to deny, the matter that they do not want their children to know
about.

Why do we allow this kind of secrecy and spurning of scrutiny in science?  Is it tolerated in any other discipline?

Steve McIntyre has his response here.  McIntyre still has my favorite comment ever about Hansen and his gang:

While acolytes may call these guys "professionals", the process of
data adjustment is really a matter of statistics and even accounting.
In these fields, Hansen and Mann are not "professionals" - Mann
admitted this to the NAS panel explaining that he was "not a
statistician". As someone who has read their works closely, I do not
regard any of these people as "professional". Much of their reluctance
to provide source code for their methodology arises, in my opinion,
because the methods are essentially trivial and they derive a certain
satisfaction out of making things appear more complicated than they
are, a little like the Wizard of Oz. And like the Wizard of Oz, they
are not necessarily bad men, just not very good wizards.

Update:  If you have a minute, read Hansen's letter, and then ask yourself:  Does this sound like what I would expect of scientific discourse?  Does he sound more like a politician or a scientist?

Today I read one of the most bizarre articles I have read in quite a long time.  Murray Whyte of the Toronto Star (HT: Junk Science) seems to have developed a fantasy that climate change will drive people out of Arizona and back to Cleveland, Buffalo and Toronto.  Uh, yeah.  The article is laden with shoddy science, gross contradictions, bad economics, and a recurrent envy of wealth and success.  The article is so much of a mess that I just can't resist fisking it in detail, despite its length. 

Before I begin, though, I am not necessarily a huge Arizona booster.  Phoenix works pretty well for me at this point in my life, but I have lived in many great places.  And I am the last one to criticize anyone who decides that they just can't live in a place where it is 110F for 6 weeks straight.  That being said, lets get into it.  The article is titled: 

Climate Change Herald Mass Migration:  Concerns
raised as the U. S. Southwest grapples with historic drought, water
supply depletion and the creeping sense that things can only get worse.

We will get into all this later, but you gotta love the "creeping sense that things can only get worse."  Who has this sense, other than the author?  Phoenix is one of the most optimistic and positive places I have ever lived.

The state of Arizona has more than 300 golf courses, a booming economy,
endless sunshine and, at last count, at least five Saks Fifth Avenue
department stores "” in short, nearly everything the well-heeled
sybarite would need.

He sets the tone right up front.  This article is not about climate or rain or anything else.  It is about envy and a distaste for other people's wealth and success.

There's just one thing missing: rain.

For the past
month, not a drop has fallen in Maricopa County, home to greater
Phoenix, the state's economic engine and fastest-growing hub. Over that
period, temperatures have hovered five to seven degrees above the
30-year average, at one point holding steady at over 43C for 10
straight days, while hundreds of brush fires burned statewide.

Its the freaking Sonoran desert!  We go months without rain.  We are supposed to go months without rain.  We average like 8 inches a year.  This county went months at a time without rain long before human beings burned their first molecule of fossil fuels.  If we got much more rain than this, all of our Saguaro cactuses would die.

And 43c is 109F.  We almost always go 4-6 weeks with temperatures over 109.  And he is saying this is 6C (10F) more than normal.  Get real!  I can't remember any June or July we ever went even 5 straight days under 100F during this part of the summer. By the way, Arizona's highest June temperature was recorded in 1994, its highest July temperature in 1905, and its highest August temperature in 1933. So much for record highs of late. (Maybe one reason it seems to be getting hotter is that they are measuring the temperature of asphalt parking lots).

"And they're still building billion-dollar houses, right in the
middle of the desert," says Paul Oyashi, incredulous. "It doesn't seem
rational, does it?"

Holy Crap!  Billion dollar houses!  Our retractable roof football stadium didn't cost a billion dollars, Canadian or US.  Oh, and you see that having gone 4 paragraphs without being snide about wealth, he needed to get back to this topic.  And who the $%@!! is Paul Oyashi?

In a word, no. Rational, some would say,
would be a mass migration from the drought-ravaged American southwest,
where Southern California just experienced its driest 12-month period
in recorded history, to more verdant climes.

One such place?
Cleveland, the battered hub of Cuyahoga County, where Oyashi sits as
director of the department of development. "We don't have earthquakes,
we don't have brush fires, we've got all the fresh water you could ever
want," Oyashi says. "That's logic. But the problem is, it flies in the
face of reality."

So this Oyashi guy is the development guy for Cleveland?  Who made the Toronto Star a shill for the Cleveland chamber of commerce?  Is it really this writer's premise that we are on the verge of a reverse migration from Phoenix to Cleveland?  My sense is that we are not on the verge of such a reverse migration, and this is a chance for everyone in the Rust Belt to lament that fact.

At first glance, the crises
of the rust belt and the Southwest would seem unrelated. They are, in
fact, inexorably linked. Each has what the other does not. In Phoenix,
tremendous affluence; in Cleveland, and in Detroit, Toledo, Youngstown,
Buffalo, Rochester, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie, abundant,
near-endless water "“ in the Great Lakes alone, as much as 25 per cent
of the world's supply.

Note the writer implicitly accepts the zero-sum wealth fallacy -- in his eyes, wealth is a natural resource just like water.  Cleveland has water, Phoenix has wealth.  I won't get into this fallacy much here, but suffice it to say wealth is not something that springs magically from a well.  More here.  For a hundred years, Cleveland was a wealth-creation machine.  To the extent they are not today, they might check their tax and regulatory policies.

And as the Southwest and parts of the
Southeast grapple with historic drought, water supply depletion "“
earlier this year, Lake Okeechobee in Florida, a primary water source
for the Everglades, caught fire "“ and the creeping sense that, with
climate change, things can only get worse, a new reality is dawning:
that logic, finally, will have a larger role to play in human migratory
dynamics, continent-wide. With it come not just doomsday scenarios, but
for certain urban centres left for dead in the post-industrial
quagmire, a chance at new life.

Wow, where to start?  Anyone note the irony of Cleveland pointing fingers at someone because their lake caught on fire?  Not that he bothers to explain why a lake catching on fire is related to climate change or even drought.  And why on an article on the Southwest is the only example of water shortage taken from Florida?

But what you really need to note is the arrogant technocratic bent of the author.  He is saying that all you idiots in Phoenix are defying reality, and that finally maybe you will start making the right choices.  This is typical elitist crap.  In the author's world, anyone who makes a choice the author would not is making a wrong choice.

"Sticking a straw in the Great
Lakes is not a solution to Phoenix's water problems," says Robert
Shibley, director of the Urban Design Project at the State University
of New York at Buffalo. "Maybe it's time to really think about what
constitutes need and stop spending money to build carrying capacity in
places that don't have it by nature, and start investing in places that
do."

Shibley has long been a champion of Buffalo's dormant
potential "“ a potential reduced by half or more through the latter part
of the 20th century, as the population fell below 300,000 from a
historic high of more than 700,000.

OK, now we quote a second guy about problems in the American Southwest.  This guy is from Buffalo, New York and is a promoter of the city of Buffalo.  Why is the Toronto Star giving these guys paid advertising for their causes under the guise of a news article?  And who the hell ever suggested sending water from the Great Lakes to Phoenix?  This is a "straw" man if I ever heard one.  Even if we started building pipelines east, there would be no reason to go past the Missouri or Mississippi.

And I love this "investing in carrying capacity" thing.  What the hell does that mean?  Yeah, we have to build infrastructure when the city grows.  We have to look for water, you have to pay for snow plows.  To build in the desert, we have to pipe in water to survive.  So what?  Buffalo and Toronto and Cleveland have to truck or pipe in coal and heating oil in the winter to survive.  What's the difference?

He suggests that in the
Great Lakes basin, where less than half a per cent of the world's
population sits within easy reach of a quarter of the planet's fresh
water, the opportunity for harmony exists. In a perfect world governed
by reason, Shibley says, the only robust economic centre in the region
would serve as its heart. And that would be Toronto.

Oh my God, what a statement.  Humanity's last hope to live in harmony with nature is to move to the Rust Belt, home of a disproportionate number of America's Superfund sites and the burning Coyahoga River.  These are cities that still use the Great Lakes as a toilet, dumping tons of raw sewage out in the lakes every day.

That's an
issue for international bureaucrats to solve. But the reality is this:
according to the U.S. government, the population of the United States
is expected to reach 450 million by 2050 "“ an increase of almost 50 per
cent. The predicted pattern of settlement for these new citizens will
take them to the seven most built-out regions of the country "“ Arizona,
Texas, Florida and California among them.

Have you seen Arizona?  Is this guy really arguing that Arizona is more built-out than Michigan, New York, and Ohio?

"You're going to have
150 million people living in at least seven of the major regions that
don't have water, don't have carrying capacity, can't feed themselves,"
Shibley says. "It's an ecological disaster waiting to happen. So
there's a good reason to think that people should come back to the
Northeast, where we have the carrying capacity, and have the water."

First, we have water.  We don't even have rationing here in Phoenix, and have not in my memory.  What does "have no water mean?"  The issue with Phoenix water is that we have about the cheapest water in the country.  Any overuse (whatever that means) of water here is because politicians pander to citizens and set the price very low.  So yes, I have a big lawn that seems nuts in the desert, but that is because my water bill here is less than half of what it was in Seattle(!)  Raise the price, and I would probably xerascape my lawn.

And what city in the Great Lakes area "feeds itself?"  No one in American cities feeds themselves.  Its called division of labor.

Some have already taken notice. Last year, The Economist
ranked Cleveland the most liveable city in America (26th in the world)
based on five categories: stability, health care, culture and
environment, education and infrastructure. Among the booming cities of
the Southwest, only Los Angeles and Houston cracked the top 50. Phoenix
didn't make the list, falling behind Nairobi, Algiers and Phnomh Penh
among the world's top 126 urban centres.

LOL.  I love it, we're behind Nairobi in some survey.  Look, there is a huge disconnect in this whole argument.  If Cleveland is really more liveable, then people will move there.  But the author is saying that people are moving to Phoenix instead.  So the theme of the article is that, what?  Phoenix has a problem with too many people moving in and has a problem with too many people moving out?  This is back to the technocratic elitism.  The author is just upset that ordinary people don't do what journalists tell them they should do.

Water is a factor. It
is already a significant issue in the major regions Shibley mentions
which, not coincidentally, depend on the same diminishing source for
much of their hydration.

In 1922, seven states "“ many of them,
like Nevada, Arizona, Texas and California, desperately arid "“ signed
the Colorado River Compact, which divvied up the mighty waterway's
seemingly abundant flow.

But recent observation of the river is
alarming. Only two per cent of the river's water makes it beyond the
U.S. border, where large Mexican cities dependent on its bounty are
left with a trickle "“ much less than they need. With climate change,
river flow has been dwindling, due, among other things, to decreasing
snowfall and less consequent spring runoff, which forms a significant
part of the Colorado River basin's lifeblood.

The river is the
main water source for more than 30 million people stretching from
Colorado in the north all the way down to the U.S.-Mexico border. By
the end of the century, inflow to the river (which includes runoff and
tributaries) is expected to drop by as much as 40 per cent.

First, who is saying that climate change is affecting the flow of the Colorado River?  Annual variations certainly affect it, but no one, and I mean no one, has created a climate model with the resolution to say that if there is substantial global warming in the future,the effect on the Colorado River flow will be X or Y.  Even the IPCC admits it really doesn't have a clue how world temperature changes might affect river flows, or the water cycle in general.  People always want to assume that hotter means drier, but hotter also means a lot more ocean evaporation which can translate into more, not less, precipitation. 

The problem with the use of the Colorado is not climate, but price.  As mentioned above, Phoenix has among the lowest water prices in the country.  In addition, farmers in Arizona and Southern California, who use most of the water despite the snide remarks about golf courses and billion dollar homes, get rates subsidized even lower.  Letting water prices rise to a real supply/demand clearing price that matches demand to river flow would solve the water "crisis" in about five minutes.

At
the same time, climate change projections show temperatures in the most
parched regions of the Southwest increasing between five and seven
degrees. That would make Phoenix's hottest days well over 54C.

Five to seven degrees C are at the high, worst case end of the IPCC projections, which are themselves grossly overstated for a number of reasons I wrote here and here.  Also, much of the warming would be winter nights -- you just can't add the global warming projections to the daytime maximums -- this is plain ignorant.   One thing I agree with -- if our daytime temperatures were to reach 54C, which is over 129F, I will be moving. 

In
Arizona, though, these warnings seem to fall on deaf ears. "The Greater
Phoenix region continues to bust at the seams," says Christopher Scott,
a research professor of water resource policy at the University of
Arizona in Tucson. "People look at this and think, `This can't go on,
can it?'"

But it does, and faster than anywhere else in America.
From 1990 to 2005, the population of Greater Phoenix grew 47.7 per
cent. In Scottsdale, a posh, affluent corner of Greater Phoenix that,
despite the lack of moisture, has more golf courses per capita than
anywhere else in America, growth was 72.1 per cent over the same
period.

Altogether, Greater Phoenix will likely crest at 4
million people some time this year, making it the fourth-largest
metropolitan area in America. By mid-century, some estimates suggest it
will reach 10 million, leaving Phoenix and Tucson fused in the desert.
"We'll basically be one massive urban corridor," Scott says.

Hey, he quoted a guy from west of the Mississippi!  This is the same kind of language that every anti-growth person uses in every city.  And by the way, there is that class thing again -- "posh, affluent."  And what does "bust at the seams" mean?  Phoenix has some of the least-bad traffic of any major city, we have sufficient water, sufficient power, lots of raw land, etc.

Phoenix
receives water from the Colorado through canals hundreds of kilometres
long, pumped through parched landscapes and small communities along the
way that take their fill. It is, essentially, a city that shouldn't be
there, so distant is the water supply.

"Shouldn't be there," by what definition?  Here is what that means:  "I, the author, don't think there should be a city there."  OK, don't live here.  Couldn't I write this sentence instead, "Cleveland receives petroleum from Texas and the Middle East in pipelines hundreds of miles long to provide needed heat in their cold winters.  Its is, essentially, a city that shouldn't be there, so distant is its energy supply."  Jeez, why is it we can have a global economy and division of labor and move resources around the world, but we have to build cities right next to water sources.  What about Aluminum, oil, gold, bauxite, lead, zinc, and iron?  Must we only build cities where all these are near by as well?

Scott, who has studied
water supply issues from India to Mexico to West Africa, has seen no
end to water-appropriation schemes in development-crazy Arizona.
"Piping in sea water from the Sea of Cortez in Mexico, desalinating it,
and then piping the salty brine back into the ocean "“ that's the kind
of hare-brained notion I've heard here," he says. "Do I consider these
things tenable? Not at all. But these are proposals people are talking
about seriously, in public, and they're getting a lot more play."

Scott
worries that technology may well make such things possible, but at a
destructive energy cost that simply exacerbates the problem. "We're
already starting to ask questions about the larger issues associated
with pumping in all that water along those canals "“ the energy costs,
and the carbon impact associated with it," he says. "They may solve the
water issue short-term, but they pull the sustainability rug out from
under you in the process."

We now see the author's real position.  He is not really lamenting the lack of water in the Southwest - he likes it.  He wants to drive people out.  We see he and professor Scott here actually lamenting the fact that technology might solve the water problem.

As to the sustainability issue, its absurd.  I will admit I don't know the figures, but I would be shocked if moving water around was even 0.1% of US energy use.  And besides, we move everything else around the world, moving water is trivial.

Finally, I don't really want to accept the author's premise that CO2 reduction is so critical, but if I were to accept it, I might point out that most of our electricity in Phoenix is provided by America's largest nuclear plant supplemented by natural gas, while mid-Western cities are fed mostly by big old honkin coal burning plants.  I would put our electric generation carbon footprint up against most any Rust Belt city.

The long-term solution, of course, is
to relocate people where they can comfortably exist. (Oyashi certainly
knows a place where you can get a decent house on the cheap.) In a free
society, of course, forced migration isn't really an option.

Do you get the sense he says the last line with a frustrated sigh, lamenting the fact that he can't force people to live where he thinks they should live?

But
as the sustainability crisis worsens, "usually economic forces will do
it for you," says Robert McLeman, a professor of geography at the
University of Ottawa. "When cities have to build new infrastructure and
to jack up taxes to cope, when the cost of running a household becomes
prohibitive, people will move."

Fine, but I will bet you a million dollars our taxes in Phoenix are a lot lower than they are in Toronto. And I know for a fact, since I almost moved there once, that our cost of living is a lot lower.  So maybe this infrastructure and sustainability crisis in Phoenix is a chimera?  Maybe its just wishful thinking?

..."Once the heat becomes unbearable, they may find the
freezing cold a little more bearable"“especially if it's not quite so
freezing cold as they remember."

It won't happen without help. In
Buffalo, Shibley speaks of a federal urban sustainabilty plan that
funnels federal money to the Great Lakes region to help draw population
back. It's been more than 30 years since the U.S. had a comprehensive
national urban plan. Looming ecological crises in burgeoning urban
centers more than justify a revival. "Cities don't grow by topsy, it's
not a thing of nature "“ it's a function of public policy," he says.

Oops, we seem to be abandoning the whole "free society" thing above.  Sure looks like they want to use federal law and tax policy to drive migration where they want it to go, against where people are moving currently of their own free will.  Oh, and city growth is NOT a function of public policy.  Cities grew up and evolved long before government ever took a heavy hand in their development.

But
a significant piece is missing, McLeman warns. "These cities will have
milder climates, be easier to live in, and cheaper," he says, "but
ultimately, they'll have to have the jobs to go with them."

Oyashi
is painfully familiar with the concept. Cleveland may have a surfeit of
cheap, liveable housing and an abundance of fresh water, but its
problems are legion. Abandoned industrial sites litter the area, too
big or too expensive to put to other purposes. Small victories pale in
the face of greater challenges, like trying to convince Ford not to
close two of its three plants in the region. "We've got some dinosaurs
walking around here," he says.

Speaking of public policy and taxation, you don't think that different public policy choices in Cleveland vs. Phoenix might have a teensy bit to do with this?

But those problems, endemic
rust-belt-wide, are just the most visible. High crime rates,
languishing schools and spiralling urban poverty plague Cleveland, too.
Phoenix, for all its money, can't make it rain any more than Cleveland,
with all its water, can print the money it needs....

Gee, the relative growth in Phoenix vs. the lack thereof in Cleveland sure is a head scratcher.  Its incredible that people would tolerate long transportation distances for water just to escape things like high crime rates, languishing schools and spirally urban poverty.

He lays the responsibility at the federal
government's door. "It's not like we have a policy that says, `You
know, we should have a national policy that provides incentive for
people to live in ecologically sustainable areas,'" he says. "What we
have here is `Go wherever you want, do whatever you want, and the
government will follow with its chequebook.' You get this haphazard
checkerboard of winners and losers, rather than directed development in
the regions that can sustain it. It's crisis management."

Yes, its just awful that the government lets people live wherever they want and then puts infrastructure in the places people choose to live.  So haphazard!  People are doing things that are not controlled or directed!  Eek!Clearly the author thinks the government should build the infrastructure wherever it wants to, and then force people to live in those places.   We elites know better!  We will tell you where you should live!  And by the way, who in the hell anointed the Rust Belt with the title of "most sustainable area."  And what is sustainability?  Couldn't I argue that all those midwest cities are sitting on valuable cropland or forest land, and that Phoenix is the most sustainable because we are just building on empty desert?  And if there is such a thing as sustainability in city development, who decided that the proximity of fresh water was the #1 be-all end-all component?

So, I will make a counter-proposal.   Rather than focusing on cities, let's focus on agriculture, because water IS a be-all end-all component to agriculture.  Much of the water we use in the Southwest is for agriculture, and I
don't think that agriculture would be here without huge subsidies. Frankly, the sustainability problem of agriculture in the desert is orders of magnitude worse than that of cities here.  So here is the plan:

1) Sell water in Arizona for a price that better matches supply and demand

2) Stop subsidizing water for agriculture

3) Stop sending farm subsidies, such as for cotton, to people to grow crops in the desert.

This would relieve a taxpayer burden AND it would likely shift farming out of the Southwest to places like the Midwest.    As a result, you would get a migration of farmers and agriculture back east and you would free up a lot of water in the southwest so more people can live here, where they really want to live.    But of course, this is not what the author wants.  He wants more people in the cities, paying absurdly high Detroit property and income taxes.  Well, good luck.

Update:  Large follow-up post to this one, including research on Arizona water use and how the Rust Belt treats the Great Lakes like a toilet here.

The table of contents for the rest of this paper, . 4A Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is here.  Free pdf of this Climate Skepticism paper is here and print version is sold at cost here

As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this paper has
not been to provide a balanced portrayal of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory; its purpose instead is to
provide a comprehensive overview of skeptic's concerns with AGW theory.
However, the issues raised here are not necessarily new, and AGW supporters
have attempted to address many of them. 

The New
Scientist, a fairly strong and reliable voice for advocacy of anthropogenic
global warming theory, recently published its response to what it calls 26
myths about global warming, many of these "myths" being correlated loosely with
skeptics concerns about AGW theory as outlined in this paper.  Walking
through their points seems a reasonable way to entertain a rebuttal to the
skeptic's position.  Each of these has a link to the New Scientist article
in question.  I have tried to summarize the position with a quote, shown
in italics.  My response to each then follows.

Before I get into these 20 myths, note that many of the key
skeptic's questions are neatly avoided.   While the magazine gives
itself certain softball questions, it does not attempt to take on skeptics
questions such as:

• Isn't warming from CO2 a diminishing return, such that each 10ppm of CO2
  has less warming effect than the last 10 ppm?
• Isn't warming from CO2 asymptotic, such that total warming from CO2 is
  capped?
• Isn't 2/3 or more of the future warming in IPCC forecasts due to
  positive feedback effects that tend to be rare in stable systems and that even
  the IPCC admits are poorly understood?
• Aren't there a lot of problems with ground-based temperature measurements?
• Aren't the historical proxies for temperature diverging from
  measurements, such that the IPCC actually dropped many of the recent proxy
  measurements to hide this result?

There are many others, but we can get at them tangentially
through dealing with the 20 "myths" below

"¢ Human
CO₂ emissions are too tiny to matter

So what's going on? It is true that human
emissions of CO₂ are small compared with natural sources. But the
fact that CO₂ levels have remained steady until very recently shows
that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now
slightly more CO₂ must be entering the atmosphere than is being
soaked up by carbon "sinks".

Though I do know that some skeptics will claim that man can't be changing
world CO2 levels, I don't believe I even tried to make that claim in this paper.

The more salient point in
asking whether human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter is to ask whether the
change in composition of the atmosphere of 0.009% by human activities is
substantial enough to affect world climate in any important way, particularly
when the portion being increased, CO2, is a relatively weak greenhouse gas vs.
other portions.

"¢ We
can't do anything about climate change

It is true that the action taken
so far, such as the Kyoto Protocol, will only have a marginal effect. The
protocol's authors have always described it as a first step. But even before it
came into effect in 2005, the protocol has triggered some profound thinking
among governments, corporations and citizens about their carbon footprint and
how to reduce it. Industrialized countries such as the UK are planning for
emissions reductions of 60% or more by mid-century.

This is a bit of a straw man.  Certainly to the extent
that man is causing climate change, men with enough will can do something about
it.  The question is whether the costs justify the avoided change "“ this
is a question that I have addressed sufficiently and won't revisit here.
However, I would like to comment on this:

We may find that once the
process has begun, the world loses its addiction to carbon fuels surprisingly quickly.
Natural scientists fear "tipping points" in the climate system. But there are
also tipping points in social, economic and political systems. Once under way,
things can happen fast"¦

This is a statement to which I both agree and disagree.  I am a technological
optimist, and so generally accept that world-changing technologies will
continue to spring from man's mind, and that the introduction of these changes
can be fast and their impact dramatic.  The only reason that I am a tad
skeptical about this statement is that the vast majority of strong AGW
adherents are technology pessimists, so it would be uncharacteristic for them
to take such a position.  Absent unimagined new technologies, change of
the type AGW supporters are hoping for is actually not a positive
feedback process as implied in this statement. Why is it that climate
scientists see so many positive feedback processes, when these are actually so
rare? In fact, most investment decisions, for example investments to reduce CO2
emissions, follow a diminishing return relationship.  Early investors
capture the low-hanging fruit, while each successive wave of investment offers
a lower return (here, in CO2 reduction) for each incremental dollar invested.

"¢ The
'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong

Most researchers would agree that while the
original hockey stick can "“ and has "“ been improved in a number of ways, it was
not far off the mark. Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the
error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading
up to the 20^th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that
it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of
the 20^th century.

No one statement by AGW supporters would do more to build my confidence in
their findings than to actually have someone say "the Mann hockey stick was a
deeply flawed analysis, and we have taken great pains to make sure the flaws identified
in Mann are not present in other historical reconstructions."  However,
when I see the statement above, I am left to wonder if any of the flaws in Mann
have actually been corrected in other works, or if systematic errors still
exist.  Since AGW supporters refuse to acknowledge flaws in Mann, it is
almost certain that these flaws still exist in the other analyses (therefore
making it unsurprising that new analyses show roughly the same results).
Remember that Mann was replaced by Biffra as lead author of this section of the
Fourth IPCC report, and it was Biffra who dropped 20-30 years of recent data
from his historical reconstruction when it did not show the result that he
wanted it to.

"¢ Chaotic
systems are not predictable

Getting reasonably accurate
predictions is a matter of choosing the right timescale: days in the case of
weather, decades in the case of climate.

Climate scientists sometimes
refer to the effects of chaos as intrinsic or unforced variability: the
unpredictable changes that arise from the dynamic interactions between the
oceans and atmosphere rather than being a result of "forcings" such
as changes in solar irradiance or greenhouse gases.

The crucial point is that
unforced variability occurs within a relatively narrow range. It is constrained
by the major factors influencing climate: it might make some winters bit a
warmer, for instance, but it cannot make winters warmer than summers

There are systems people who would both agree and disagree
with this statement.  The real study of chaotic systems is barely older
than the study of global warming, and most mathematicians would say that the
issue of long-term predictability of macro trends in chaotic systems is not
settled science.

However, one issue the statement overlooks is that even if
chaotic systems have some long-term order, at least when "viewed from a
distance," this does not mean that the drivers of those long-term trends can be
discerned by those of us standing in the chaos.  So while it may be
theoretically possible to predict long-scale climate changes, it may still be
impossible to discern the true drivers of these climate systems amidst the
chaos, making the long-term prediction problem moot.

Remember, no one has a thermometer that provides two readings "“ temperature
due to "natural" causes and temperature due to man-made forcings. 
The only argument one can make outside of a laboratory is to try to correlate
temperature changes to certain other variables, like CO2 level.  But in a
chaotic system, when thousands of variables may matter, and there are all kinds
of cross-dependencies between variables, definitively showing direct
correlation, much less causation, is very hard, possibly impossible. 
Remember, outside lab experiments, climate scientists main argument that CO2 is
causing current warming is "We have checked everything else it possibly could
be, and it wasn't those things, so it must be CO2."  In a chaotic system,
such a statement borders on hubris.

"¢ We
can't trust computer models of climate

Climate is average weather, and it can vary unpredictably
only within the limits set by major influences like the Sun and levels of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We might not be able to say whether it will
rain at noon in a week's time, but we can be confident that the summers will be
hotter than winters for as long as the Earth's axis remains tilted.

The validity of models can be tested against
climate history. If they can predict the past (which the best models are pretty
good at) they are probably on the right track for predicting the future "“ and
indeed have successfully done so.

I hope that if you have learned anything from this paper, you already know
how to refute the statement above.  Climate models match history because
they have been tuned and tweaked and overridden to do so.  The fact that
they then can reproduce history is meaningless.  Even more, you should run
away quickly from anyone who makes this statement, because they are either
ignorant of what they are talking about or they are trying to sell you the
Brooklyn Bridge.

Finally, the claim is sometimes
made that if computer models were any good, people would be using them to
predict the stock market. Well, they are!

A lot of trading in the
financial markets is already carried out by computers. Many base their
decisions on fairly simple algorithms designed to exploit tiny profit margins,
but others rely on more sophisticated long-term models.

Sorry, but this is a facile and ignorant mis-interpretation of what
financial models are doing.  Yes, people are running long-term financial
models as part of a trading strategy, but these models feed into very
short-term trading decisions.  If you looked at the output from these long-term
models, you would see that they are changing constantly as new data flows
in.  There is an old joke about two campers who see a bear growling at
them.  One of them starts putting his tennis shoes on.  The other one
says to him "Why are you putting your shoes on?  You can't outrun that
bear."   His friend replied "I don't have to outrun the bear.  I
just have to outrun you."  Traders' long-term models work the same.
They don't actually expect them to be right, they just want them to be better,
based on current conditions, than other traders' models, then they can make
money.

"¢ They
predicted global cooling in the 1970s

Indeed they did"¦. However, Schneider soon
realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and
underestimated the effect of CO₂, meaning warming was more likely
than cooling in the long run"¦.

The calls for action to prevent further
human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of
research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been
subjected to intense "“ and sometimes ferocious "“ scrutiny. According to the
latest IPCC report, it is more than
90% certain that the world is already warming as a result of human activity

We have already dealt with aerosols, and unlike many skeptics I have not
really held the 1970's global cooling panic against the climate
community.  The last paragraph is just circular.  Saying the IPCC is
90% sure does not answer the arguments about what skeptics feel the IPCC is
ignoring.

"¢ It's
been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?

First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that
any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a
reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic
ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its
interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair
amount of guesswork.

This is hilarious.  What happened to their confidence in Mann and
1000-year temperature reconstructions just a few myths back?  But to
continue, the answer is basically yes, but:

The important question is what
is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural
variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past.
Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human
activity.

Nor does the fact that it has
been warmer in the past mean that future warming is nothing to worry about. The
sea level has been tens of metres higher during past warm periods, enough to
submerge most major cities around the world.

Here is why it matters "“ beyond the laboratory evidence of the greenhouse
effect, which tells us merely that there is an affect and not how strong it is,
the main evidence cited by AGW supporters for current warming being man-made is
to try to show that current warming is somehow unprecedented, and therefore
unlikely to be natural.  So it is odd here that AGW supporters simply
shrug their shoulders here and say that it is not important that current
warming be unprecedented.

"¢ It's
too cold where I live - warming will be great

This does not sound too bad, and for many people
it won't be. Wealthy individuals and countries will be able to adapt to most
short-term changes, whether it means buying an air conditioner or switching to
crops better suited to the changing climate. Rainfall will fall in
mid-latitudes but rise in high latitudes, and initially agricultural yields
will probably.  Some regions will suffer, though. Africa could be hardest
hit, with yields predicted to halve in some countries as early as 2020.

As global temperature climbs to 3°C above
present levels - which is likely
to happen before the end of this century if greenhouse emissions continue
unabated - the consequences will become increasingly severe. More than a third
of species face extinction. Agricultural yields will start to fall in many
parts of the world. Millions of people will be at risk from coastal flooding.
Heatwaves, droughts, floods and wildfires will take an ever greater toll.

I hope readers will accept that I am not exaggerating or constructing straw
men when I talk about the dire predictions by AGW supporters.  There is
nothing here that we have not dealt with earlier, except perhaps the
rainfall.  Of late, AGW supporters seem to have shifted to rainfall
(rather than sea level rise) as their lead scary topic.  Note, however,
that even the IPCC admits that it and all of its modelers really do not
understand (even a little bit) the effect of global warming on rainfall and
drought.  Logic says that with more water evaporated, while global warming
may cause now local draughts, overall rainfall should increase.  I would
bet any amount of money that lower economic growth due to aggressive CO2 abatement
will have a far more deleterious effect on worldwide agricultural yields than
global warming.

"¢ Global
warming is down to the Sun, not humans

So what role, if any, have solar fluctuations
had in recent temperature changes? While we can work out how Earth's orbit has
changed going back many millions of years, we have no first-hand record of the
changes in solar output associated with sunspots before the 20^th century.

It is true that sunspot records go back to the
17^th century, but sunspots actually block the Sun's radiation. It is
the smaller bright spots (faculae) that increase the Sun's output and these
were not recorded until more recently. The correlation between sunspots and
bright faculae is not perfect, so estimates of solar activity based on sunspot
records may be out by as much as 30%.

The other method of working out past solar
activity is to measure levels of carbon-14 and beryllium-10 in tree rings and
ice cores. These isotopes are formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, and
higher sunspot activity is associated with increases in the solar wind that
deflect more galactic cosmic rays away from Earth. Yet again, though, the
correlation is not perfect. What is more, recent evidence suggests that the
deposition of beryllium-10 can
be affected by climate changes, making it even less reliable as a measure
of past solar activity.

This is again a pretty hilarious statement.  One could easily argue
that temperature and CO2 proxies have at least as much
uncertainty.  One wonders why AGW advocates do not seem as concerned about
the errors in the proxies they hold dear.  But anyway, to continue:

But even if solar forcing in the past was more
important than this estimate suggests, as some scientists think, there is no
correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40
years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document).

Direct measurements of solar output since 1978
show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .

Similarly, there is no trend in direct
measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the
period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed
dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of
solar activity.

This is another you-study-my-study pissing match.  I am happy to admit
that our knowledge of the sun's changing impact on climate is poor, and that it
is hard to separate out this one effect in a chaotic system.  I refuse to
fall into the same scientific hubris as AGW supporters.  However, those
who think the sun has some contribution to warming are buttressed by the
knowledge that they are working with the main driver of climate, rather than a
secondary variable.

"¢ It's
all down to cosmic rays

There is no convincing evidence
that cosmic rays are a major factor determining cloud cover. The ionising of
air by cosmic rays will impart an electric charge to aerosols, which in theory
could encourage them to clump together to form particles large enough for cloud
droplets to form around, called "cloud condensation nuclei".

But cloud physicists say it has
yet to be shown that such clumping occurs. And even if it does, it seems
far-fetched to expect any great effect on the amount of clouds in the atmosphere.
Most of the atmosphere, even relatively clean marine air, has plenty of cloud
condensation nuclei already.

A series of attempts by
Svensmark to show an effect have come unstuck. Initially, Svensmark claimed
there was a correlation between cosmic ray intensity and satellite measurements
of total cloud cover since the 1980s "“ yet a correlation does not prove cause
and effect. It could equally well reflect changes in solar irradiance, which
inversely correlate with cosmic ray intensity.

I am starting to notice a trend here of making statements about competing
that could be applied equally well to AGW theory.  And what about all
those points they made above, reminding us over and over that CO2 greenhouse
theory works in the lab.  Now the lab is not good enough?

However, I would accept that the cosmic ray theory is pretty undeveloped and
not acceptably proven.  It has had a number of fits and starts.  Just
like CO2 greenhouse theory, the cosmic ray effect on climate can be reproduced
in the lab, but it is really hard to parse out its effects in the chaotic
climate.

"¢ CO₂
isn't the most important greenhouse gas

At some of these overlaps, the
atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more
greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For
other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher
levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference.

This means that when it comes to
the greenhouse effect, two plus two does not equal four.

Wow!  An AGW supporter actually said this in public.  This is to
our point that there is a diminishing return from incremental CO2 in the
atmosphere.  Of course, they say this in the context of trying to show why
water isn't as important as it might seem, but still, it's there

But the overall quantities of these other gases
are tiny. Even allowing for the relative strength of the effects, CO₂
is still responsible for two-thirds
of the additional warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a
result of human activity.

Water vapour will play a huge role in the
centuries to come, though. Climate models, backed by satellite
measurements, suggest that the amount of water vapour in the upper
troposphere (about 5 to 10 kilometres up) will double by the end of this
century as temperatures rise.

This will result in roughly twice as much
warming than if water vapour remained constant. Changes in clouds could lead to
even greater amplification of the warming or reduce it "“ there is great uncertainty
about this. What is certain is that, in the jargon of climate science, water
vapour is a feedback, but not a forcing.

Again, I am not getting into this, we covered it plenty in the paper.
When they say "CO2 is still responsible for two-thirds of the additional
warming" (and remember this is an output of their models, not any other
analysis)  what they really mean is that "our models that were programmed
to have CO2 drive the climate show that CO2 drives the climate."
Note that in a three paragraph answer about the effect of water vapor as
a climate feedback, only three words "“ "or reduce it" "“ acknowledge that it
might actually have a negative feedback effect, despite the fact that even the
IPCC includes cloud cover as a negative feedback.  They just don't want to
admit a negative feedback might even exist.

"¢ The
lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming

One study in Science
revealed errors in the way satellite data had been collected and interpreted.
For instance, the orbit of satellites gradually slows, which has to be taken
into account because it affects the time of day at which temperature recording
are taken. This problem was always recognised, but the corrections were given
the wrong sign (negative instead positive and vice versa).

A second study, also
in Science, looked at the weather balloon data. Measurements of the air
temperature during the day can be skewed if the instruments are heated by
sunlight. Over the years the makers of weather balloons had come up with better
methods of preventing or correcting for this effect, but because no one had
taken these improvements into account, the more accurate measurements appeared
to show daytime temperatures getting cooler.

The corrected temperature records show that
tropospheric temperatures are indeed rising at roughly the same rate as surface
temperatures. Or, as a 2006 report by the US Climate Change Science Program (pdf) puts
it: "For recent decades, all current atmospheric data sets now show
global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming." This one
appears settled.

There is still some ambiguity in the tropics,
where most measurements show the surface warming faster than the upper
troposphere, whereas the models predict faster warming of the atmosphere.
However, this is a minor discrepancy compared with cooling of the entire
troposphere and could just be due to the errors of margin inherent in both the
observations and the models.

First, observe absolutely ruthless efforts to apply corrections and
adjustments to any measurement that does not fit their theory, while blithely
accepting the surface temperature measurements that we showed can be really
unreliable.  Given the choice of focusing on managing satellite
temperatures up or surface temperature down, you can see which they
chose.   Second, note that this is another narrow one study
conclusion.  AGW supporters frequently cite single studies (conducted by
AGW supporters) that overturn skeptics arguments as having "settled" the
issue.  There are still many reasons to think that troposphere temperature
increases are less than surface increases.  Finally, even temperature
increases that were the same between the surface and the troposphere would be a
real problem for AGW theory.  The authors here act like this
surface-troposphere issue is a minor deal, but in fact if AGW theory is right,
the troposphere has to warm more, because that is where the extra heat
is being absorbed.  This is not at all settled. 

"¢ Antarctica
is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming

It is clear that the Antarctic Peninsula, which juts
out from the mainland of Antarctica towards South America, has warmed
significantly. The continent's interior was thought to have warmed too, but in
2002 a new analysis of
records from 1966 to 2000 concluded that it has cooled overall"¦.

Climate models do not predict an evenly spread
warming of the whole planet: changes in wind patterns and ocean currents can
change the distribution of heat, leading to some parts warming much faster than
average, while others cool at first.

Agreed

"¢ The
oceans are cooling

Now the authors of the 2006 study have submitted a
correction (pdf format). It turns out that a fault in the software on some
of the floats led to some temperature measurements being associated with the
wrong depth.

Meanwhile, work by other teams suggests that the
past warmth of the oceans has been overestimated. The problem was due to
expendable sensors that are thrown overboard and take measurements as they
sink.

I never had heard the claim that the oceans were cooling, so it does not
surprise me that they are not.  However, it is again interesting the
amount of due diligence that AGW supporter put in to the correction of any
temperature measurement the might refute global warming, while blithely
accepting the atrocious condition and biases in ground-based temperature
measurement because, well, because these instruments are telling the story they
want to hear.

"¢ The
cooling after 1940 shows CO₂ does not cause warming

The mid-century cooling appears to have been
largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere,
emitted by industrial activities and volcanic
eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because
they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its
energy back out into space.

The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to
the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In
addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the
lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after
increasing at the beginning of the century

I think I was pretty fair in discussing the aerosol cooling hypothesis in
this paper, though many would disagree with the above statement's certainty.

Climate models that take into account only
natural factors, such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions, do not
reproduce 20th century temperatures very well. If, however, the models include
human emissions, including greenhouse gases and aerosols, they accurately reproduce
the 1940 to 1970 dip in temperatures.

I hope readers who have made it this far can supply the refutation of this
point:  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Climate models initially matched
history poorly.  Today they match well because they have been tweaked and
adjusted and forced to match.  They match because they are programmed to
match.  And, as we discussed, they match only because they make
ridiculously low assumptions for natural forcings, and assume all natural
forcings causing temperatures to rise in the first half of the century
magically reversed in 1950, though there is no good evidence for it. 

"¢ It
was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England

In the southern hemisphere, the picture is even
more mixed, with evidence of both warm and cool periods around this time. The
Medieval Warm Period may have been partly a regional phenomenon, with the
extremes reflecting a redistribution of heat around the planet rather than a
big overall rise in the average global temperature.

What is clear, both from the temperature
reconstructions and from independent evidence "“ such as the extent of the
recent melting of mountain glaciers "“ is that the planet has been warmer in the
past few decades than at any time during the medieval period. In fact, the
world may not have been so warm for 6000 or even 125,000 years (see Climate myths: It has been warmer in the past,
what's the big deal?).

What really matters, though, is not how warm it
is now, but how warm it is going to get in the future. Even the temperature
reconstructions that show the greatest variations in the past 1000 years suggest
up until the 1980s, average temperature changes remained within a narrow band
spanning 1ºC at most. Now we are climbing out of that band, and the latest IPCC report (pdf format) predicts a further rise of
0.5ºC by 2030 and a whopping 6.4ºC by 2100 in the worst case scenario.

We have covered this pretty well in this paper, so again I won't go back
into it, except to highlight a couple of things we can learn from this
statement.  First, note the hubris again "“ it is warmer today than in the
last 125,000 years.  I sure wish there was a way to bet on this "“ I would
have only a one in 125,000 chance of being wrong in betting against this
statement.  Second, note the use of the worst case scenarios.  For
2100, we don't get the best case or even the average case, we get the worst
case.  Can you name another branch of science where people do this?
Can you imagine, say, a group out to measure the speed of light.  They are
going to get some middle figure with an error band of some range.
Wouldn't you expect them to day that they found the speed of light to be
so-and-so, plus or minus an error of such-and-such size?  If they were
climate scientists, they would instead announce that they have found the speed
of light could be as large as Z, that being the highest possible figure in
their error band.

"¢ We
are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age

Yet while there is some evidence of cold
intervals in parts of the southern hemisphere during this time, they do not appear to
coincide with those in the northern hemisphere. Such findings suggest the Little
Ice Age may have been more of a regional phenomenon than a global one.

Solar radiation was probably lower at times
during this period, especially during a dip in solar activity called the
Maunder minimum around 1700, but models and temperature reconstructions suggest
this would have reduced average global temperatures by 0.4ºC at most.

The larger falls in temperature in Europe and
North American may have been due to changes in atmospheric circulation over the
North Atlantic, or in the Gulf Stream, or both, reducing heat transport from
the tropics (see Climate
change sceptics lose vital argument).

The warming after the so-called Little Ice Age
may reflect both an increase in solar activity and a redistribution of heat
around the planet. In particular, the increase in global temperature in the
first half of the 20^th century may have been largely due to an increase
in solar activity. The continued warming in recent decades, however, cannot be
explained by increases in solar radiation alone

Remember the graphs we showed earlier "“ the arctic proxies look like the
current warming is a straight linear increase from the 1700s to today.  In
fact, in the IPCC spaghetti graph showing all those historic reconstructions,
they all show a natural warming from the 18^th and 19^th
century through the 20^th.  Again, AGW supporters really need to
explain why they are so confident that this natural warming trend stopped in
1945 or so, exactly and coincidently at the exact same moment that man-made
forcings caused the world to continue to warm, coincidently at about the same
rate it was warming naturally earlier in the century.

"¢ Warming
will cause an ice age in Europe

Few scientists think there will
be a rapid shutdown of circulation. Most ocean models predict no more than a
slowdown, probably towards the end of the century. This could slow or even
reverse some of the warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, which
might even be welcome in an overheated Europe, but the continent is not likely
to get colder than it is at present.

A slowdown in circulation would
affect many parts of the world by disrupting global rainfall patterns. But
these effects will be insignificant compared with the much greater changes
global warming will cause

I already mentioned that this had been refuted pretty well

"¢ Ice
cores show CO₂ increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving
the link to global warming

It takes about 5000 years for an
ice age to end and, after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO₂
concentrations in the atmosphere rise together for a further 4200 years.

What seems to have happened at
the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor "“ most probably orbital
changes "“ caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO₂,
resulting in further warming that caused more CO₂ to be released and
so on: a positive feedback that amplified a small change in temperature. At
some point, the shrinking of the ice sheets further amplified the warming.

Models suggest that rising
greenhouse gases, including CO₂, explains about 40% of the warming
as the ice ages ended. The figure is uncertain because it depends on how the
extent of ice coverage changed over time, and there is no way to pin this down
precisely.

I was extremely happy to see that they at least tried to
address the issue I raised, ie is it really realistic to have a process
dominated by positive feedback, and if so, why doesn't it run away.  Their
answer:

Finally, if higher temperatures lead
to more CO₂ and more CO₂ leads to higher temperatures,
why doesn't this positive feedback lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? There
are various limiting factors that kick in, the most important being that
infrared radiation emitted by Earth increases exponentially with temperature,
so as long as some infrared can escape from the atmosphere, at some point heat
loss catches up with heat retention.

Which might make sense EXCEPT that they are claiming that
today's temperature and level of CO2 are higher than these historical levels,
so we are already higher than the level where they claim "heat loss catches up
with heat retention."  So either their answer is right, and there is a
strong compensating process which is not built into their models, or they are
wrong and they still need to explain what keeps a positive feedback dominated
process from running away.

"¢ Ice
cores show CO₂ rising as temperatures fell

There are some mismatches though. Besides lags
at the end of ice ages, cores taken from the ice overlying the famous
lake below Vostok in Antarctica seemed to show that about 120,000 years
ago, the temperature plummeted sharply while CO₂ levels remained high
for many thousands of years.

The question is whether this is real or just a
reflection of the problems with working out the age of the trapped air and with
deuterium as a temperature indicator. Many researchers are working on ways to
independently date the air and the ice, and to improve temperature
reconstructions based on relative deuterium content. One involves working out
what is called the deuterium excess by comparing the relative amounts of
deuterium and oxygen-18 in the ice.

The deuterium excess reflects the temperature at
the sea surface where the water that later fell as snow evaporated, rather than
the surface temperature where the snow fell. It helps to reveal whether
variations in the relative deuterium content of the ice are a result of water
coming from a different source region rather than changes in local temperature.

In 2001, researchers used the deuterium excess to correct for some of the
problems with the temperature record of the Vostok ice core. Their results produce
a much closer fit between temperature and CO₂ levels and reduces the
mismatch around 120,000 years ago to a few thousand years.

I did not really raise this issue, as even the most enthusiastic AGW
supporter does not tend to claim that CO2 drives all historic temperature
changes.  However, again, note the pattern "“ any historic data that does
not fit with AGW data typically is scrutinized and "corrected." 
Articles discussing flaws in methodology in gathering such data are quickly published.
Contrast this with the difficulty scientists have in questioning any data that
supports AGW theory.  As we saw earlier, the New Scientist still can't
bring itself to utter the words "the Mann hockey stick was flawed."
Neither could the IPCC, they just sort of dropped it, or buried it in the midst
of 12 others, without even saying why the analysis that was the centerpiece of
their last report was strangely missing.

"¢ Mars
and Pluto are warming too

The Sun's energy output has not increased since
direct measurements began in 1978. If increased solar output really was
responsible, we should be seeing warming on all the planets and their moons,
not just Mars and Pluto.

Our solar system has eight planets, three dwarf
planets and quite a few moons with at least a rudimentary atmosphere, and thus
a climate of sorts. Their climates will be affected by local factors such as
orbital variations, changes in reflectance (albedo) and even volcanic
eruptions, so it would not be surprising if several planets and moons turn out
to be warming at any one time.

I agree we have a lot to learn about this, and nothing at all is
settled.  However, we now have evidence from at least 5 other terrestrial bodies
that are warming at the same time the Earth is warming.  Why do AGW
supporters resist at least investigating further?

"¢ Many
leading scientists question climate change

Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that
many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what
you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April
2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's
new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

This appears to be the biggest recent list of
sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged
in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are
retired.

Compare that with the dozens of statements on
climate change from various scientific organisations around the world
representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position
represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's
stance on climate science.

I have carefully avoided the game of dueling scientific numbers.  As to
the claim that the skeptic list "are not actively engaged in studying
climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired" I
would be thrilled if AGW supporters held to this standard in making their own
numbers.  But, they manage to abandon this standard by the next paragraph,
when they claim the pro-AGW numbers, like the 11,000, are open to the same
criticism (since there are only 500-600 true climate scientists in the world,
vs. physicist, meteorologists, etc). 

"¢ It's
all a conspiracy

Now that there is a consensus, those whose
findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time
convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will
inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus. But findings
or ideas that clash with the idea of human-induced global warming have not been
suppressed or ignored "“ far from it.

Journalists do have an interest in promoting
themselves (and their books), while their employers want to boost their
audience and sell advertising. Publicity helps with all these aims, but you get
far more publicity by challenging the mainstream view than by promoting it.
Which helps explain why so many sections of the media continue to publish or
broadcast the claims of deniers, regardless of their merit.

The notion of a "conspiracy" of course, is a useful straw man, implying
devious villains in the SPECTRE conference room planning the overthrow of the
world.   I won't argue the point again, except to encourage you to
watch the news with a critical eye, and decide for yourself.  However, just
to get you started, ask yourself if these events are signs of healthy, unbiased
science:

· A
group of AGW supporters are trying to get the British government to use force
to block the publication of a skeptical movie (the Global Warming Swindle)

· AGW
supporters in California have included skeptical scientists such as MIT's Dr.
Richard Lindzen as defendants in a law suit, asking that damages be paid by
people and companies whose public speech doesn't conform to AGW theory

· Many
AGW skeptics have been unable to get scientists who have published publicly
funded research to reveal their data and methodology for critique.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests have become a necessary tool of
climate skeptics.

· When
a group began photographing temperature measurement points to document the
shortcomings in historical surface temperature measurements, the NOAA pulled
the locations of its measurement stations off the Internet so that these US
citizens could no longer take pictures of and critique US government
installations.

· Scientists
who question AGW theory are equated by AGW supporters with Holocaust deniers.

"¢ Hurricane
Katrina was caused by global warming

More data is needed settle the issue. Some are
looking to natural records of past
hurricane activity in stalagmites, lake deposits and coral rubble. Others
are re-analysing existing databases. In February 2007, one such re-analysis
concluded that over the past two decades, hurricane intensity has increased
in the Atlantic but not in other parts of the world (pdf format).

Yet another complicating factor is that changes
in climate can also change the paths that tropical cyclones tend to take,
determining whether they remain over oceans or strike land.

What every one agrees on is that over the past
few decades there has been a huge rise in the number of people being killed or
injured by hurricanes, and in damage to infrastructure, and this trend looks
set to continue. The main reason for this, however, is that more and more
people are living and building in hurricane zones.

Most of these three paragraphs is entirely correct "“ there is no evidence
that hurricane numbers or intensity are effected by global warming, and if they
are, whether they are increased or decreased.  However, Hurricane Katrina
was most certainly NOT caused by global warming.  Why can't they just say
that?   It may have been made stronger or weaker.  Its course
may have been altered.   But it was not created by warming.  By
the way, the year after Katrina saw a much smaller than average Atlantic
hurricane season.

"¢ Higher
CO₂ levels will boost plant growth and food production

But it is extremely difficult to generalise
about the overall impact on plant growth. Numerous groups around the world have
been conducting experiments in which plots of land
are supplied with enhanced CO₂, while comparable nearby plots remain
at normal levels.

While these experiments typically have found
initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off
within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some
other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water.

So the answer is yes, but there is a diminishing return at some point.
Isn't that the same as can be said for the CO2 greenhouse effect?

Predicting the world's overall changes in food
production in response to elevated CO₂ is virtually impossible.
Global production is expected to rise until the increase in local average
temperatures exceeds 3°C, but then start to fall. In tropical and dry regions
increases of just 1 to 2°C are expected to lead to falls in production. In
marginal lands where water is the greatest constraint, which includes much of
the developing world but also regions such as the western US, the losses may
greatly exceed the gains.

Have you noticed yet that things that might hurt the AGW-interventionist's
case always seem "impossible to predict" while the climate is well within our
prediction capabilities?

As for food crops, the factors are more complex.
The crops most widely used in the world for food in many cases depend on
particular combinations of soil type, climate, moisture, weather patterns and
the infrastructure of equipment, experience and distribution systems. If the
climate warms so much that crops no longer thrive in their traditional settings,
farming of some crops may be able to shift to adjacent areas, but others may
not. Rich farmers and countries will be able to adapt more easily than poorer
ones.

I love the rich-poor language.  The leftish New Scientist simply can't
help itself.  But I will accept this statement, and go further:  This
is the reason that aggressive actions to reduce CO2 that reduce economic
growth, particularly in the developing world, may not make sense.  To the
extent that some climate change will occur no matter what, or is already
programmed by our past actions, then a richer world can deal with it better
than a poorer one.

"¢ Polar
bear numbers are increasing

Yet recently there have been
claims that polar bear populations are increasing. So what's going on? There
are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups
around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these
populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the
rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for
sure how overall numbers are changing.

Again, I love this.  We can know the global temperature
increase over a century to a tenth of a degree but it is impossible to count
polar bears.

A comprehensive review (pdf) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service
concluded that shrinking sea ice is the primary cause for the decline seen in
these populations, and it recently proposed listing
polar bears as threatened (pdf) under the Endangered Species Act. The
International Conservation Union projects the bears' numbers will drop by 30% by 2050
(pdf) due to continued loss of Arctic sea ice.

Note that down 30% (which coming from an environmental
advocacy ground has got to be considered the most extreme possible estimate) is
not "extinct."  The article fails to address at all the issue that polar
bears have survived through eras when Arctic sea ice melted completely in the
summers.  And there are many reasons for threats to polar bear numbers "“
most experts would say that hunting and threats to habitat are much more
important factors than global temperatures.

The table of contents for the rest of this paper, . 4A Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is here.  Free pdf of this Climate Skepticism paper is here and print version is sold at cost here

The open comment thread for this paper can be found here.