Environment and Energy - All Comments

re: Quick Hits: Chestnuts Will Save Us Edition

cspencef — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:29:09 GMT

Chestnuts? And then we can undo all the CO2 good every December by roasting them on an open fire...

re: Harry Reid, Not Very Pugilistic Ex-Boxer

donhamm — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:35:15 GMT

Harry Reid is the perfect embodiment of the mocked and ignored middle-school science teacher vainly trying to get his class to not blow up the school and pay attention to him instead. There has not been a more ineffective, flaccid, irrelevant, and impotent Senate Majority Leader in either party for at least the last 100 years. Barack Obama would have served his own interests far better if he'd persuaded Hillary to stay in the Senate to wrest the leadership position away from Reid.

re: Weekend Reading

r.ennis — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:13:40 GMT

Thanks Brad, I will take you up on this read, I am not convinced that climate scientists have a strong enough case to trash the world economy - requiring millions of people (not them) to remain in poverty that could otherwise be avoided - for what might happen 120 years from now but I am willing to be persuaded that the case is strong enough.

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

Nari224 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 00:15:04 GMT

r.ennis: I have followed your post for some time and normally find myself in complete agreement with yourself. It's your propensity to continue to post or cite easily debunked climate change denialist pieces that I find odd.

Regarding the cap-and-trade v carbon tax or CAFE standards: I think we'd agree that a carbon tax is a non-starter in the US, and it appeared unreasonably difficult to achieve a trivial increase in the CAFE standards. What is another option? Do nothing? At least a cap-and-trade system provides some flexibility and has a build in downturn relief valve. Now I'd agree that it's flexibility is dangerous in the hands of politicians who may have tangential desires, but its an imperfect world. Since we're in agreement about the need to do something, and our preferred options have not gotten anywhere despite being functionally easier plus probably more efficiacious, what's your primary concern? The cap is a tax by another form, are you specifically concnerned with an implementation detail that we've not discussed?

Regarding the background of the article's author: that's great. However if he's found something new and important, why didn't he submit it to a peer reviewed journal? One only raises warning flags by using the National Review as your outlet (unless you are claiming that the Obama EPA is suppressing science as well and neither he nor the reviewers could take their findings to the outside world). Another warning sign might be that we are reading news stories about the "suppression" rather than how this is challenging the current thinking. Of course, science is a very conservative en devour, so it's possible that the findings are still being digested. However since I (an engineer) could find problems with it, I doubt it.

That's how science works: Once a theory has been accepted as explaining a large body of exisiting evidence as well as new evidence, it becomes accepted and challenges need to either supercede it or demonstrate why it is wrong. This is why Brad doesn't need to post data showing why the world hasn't been cooling for 10 years. The people making this claim need to. It is a bit of a tough sell given that I believe something in the order of 11 of the warmest years on record have occured in the last 13. However you could try to make the case by say, picking 1998 (warmest on record) and comparing its average temperature to those of 2007 and 2008 and note that the latter were cooler than the former. However, as someone who I presume understands statistics, you'll likely notice that this is a slightly suspect way to determine a trend. If you've got a different argument, please by all means share it.

Now none of this means that I am endeared or attached to the conclusions of the current theory. The implications suck big time to say the least. I wish it were otherwise myself. Show me the evidence and I'll be first in line to argue your case.

However you are right that this isn't penetrating the consciousness of the general populace. Perhaps it would help if all of the TV networks showed time-lapse sequences of the increasingly mis-named Glacier National Park, the Alaskan and Greenland ice sheets and the Franz Josef glacier in New Zealand since photographs started being taken. Or the ever-shrinking areas that receive snowfall over the 30-40 years years. And so on.

Also, still waiting for that violation of the laws of thermodynamics!

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

Brad Plumer — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:28:00 GMT

I assume the WSJ story you mention is the op-ed by Kimberly Strassel? As best I can tell, she's just wrong--Carlin relied heavily on non-scientific work, much of it incoherent or contradictory:

www.realclimate.org/.../bubkes

Again, if Carlin's really onto something, he should just submit his findings to a journal. I'd love it if global warming was actually false. But the evidence isn't there.

As for why no discernible increase, that part of Europe has only warmed 1-2 degrees since mid-century, according to NASA:

data.giss.nasa.gov/.../do_nmap.py

Doesn't seem like the sort of thing most people would notice, especially over a 65-year period.

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

r.ennis — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:47:00 GMT

Nari, if you followed my arguments better you will see that I have consistently argued for energy efficincy, CAFE standards, more domestic production, elimination of counter productiver New Source Review standards and abolition of renewable fuels. These alone would reduce carbon emissions by about 15% by 2020 without a dime of federal subsidy. If, by then the highly dubious predictions of "actual climate scientists" of today are confirmed, we need to move on to carbon tax high enough to actually reduce carbon. Of course the NSF and other government agencies should support further energy research, but in my experience new technology is slow to develop. My Masters thesis in 1964 was on fuel cell technology and it is still hardly economic.

Brad, really your last sentence surely came from irritation and I know that you couldn't really put climate skepticism in the categories you suggest. I respect you too much to believe that. The Wall Street Journal story on the EPA "coverup" insists that the data used for the subject report was in fact "peer-reviewed". And the author was a physicist from Cal Tech. You also cast doubt on the credibility of people who say that the earth has been cooling for at least a decade. If this is not true then show me your data.

I was struck that on the 65th anniversary of D-Day, attendees remarked on how similar the weather was as on the day of the invasion. Now D-Day was 2/3 of a century ago. Why no discernable temperature increase? I know this proves nothing but it is interesting to ponder and to explain why normal people are not concerned.

re: Harry Reid, Not Very Pugilistic Ex-Boxer

wagonjak — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:00:15 GMT

"FIghtin'" Harry Reid has managed to replace Joe "Droopy Dog" Lieberman as the most loathed, mocked and reviled Congressman on the progressive blogosphere...

Everytime I see him appear in front of a camera he seems barely sentient, head down, voice faltering and wobbly...he always reminds me of the drunken grandpa who tries to give a toast at the dinner table, but is too far gone to manage...

GO AWAY HARRY!

We need someone who's more interested in pushing the Liberal agenda hard, and not being chummy with his Republican buddys in the Senate! Someone with some dynamic moves and the requisite cajones! Yours have shriveled to the size of peas and are still shrinking!

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

Brad Plumer — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:28:40 GMT

r-ennis--I'm not sure where your questions are leading, but there's plenty of debate within climatology. A lot of those debates are heated and totally fascinating (Chris Mooney wrote a terrific book about the arguments over hurricanes). But there are also basics that no one in the field disputes--greenhouse gases having a warming effect on the planet, for instance. I realize you don't want this fact to be true. I realize there are lots of bloggers out there who have very elaborate arguments for why the world's actually cooling or whatnot. But if they have hard evidence for their position, they ought to submit it to a journal and have other scientists look at it--that's the way the process works. If they're right, their view will prevail. But it's not enough for a "technically astute individual" to tell the National Review that he doesn't believe global warming is true. Feel free to call me close-minded, but this is pseudoscience and it's worth as much attention as intelligent design or the idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS.

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

Nari224 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:43:46 GMT

R.ennis: you've always struck me as being pretty switched on, but this must be the third or fourth denialist piece that Ive (let realclimate.org) been able to spot the immediate flaws in. They're typically plauged with some combination of internal inconsistencies, denial of accepted data without refuting it or simple mis-understanding of basic science.

Do I wish the data supported a different conclusion? Absolutely. But unfortunately science is not a forum that is driven by opinion or desires. It is the business of explaining observations in the real world. Is there a great deal of uncertainty? Of course; however no-one can seriously deny that 1) CO2 (and methane) is a greenhouse gas, 2) we are pumping ever increasing large amounts of it into the atmosphere and 3) the world is warming up as evidenced by many independant forms of measurement. Now 3 does not logiclally follow 1 & 2, but that's what the balance of the evidence shows, and a plausible alternative that either explains the available data or demonstrates why the theory of Global Climate Change in wrong is yet to emerge.

As for the "catasrophic" Economic impact of raising the price of energy: I am as shocked today as the day I first came to the US at the cavalier attitude we have toward energy (as expressed by how we price it). Especially how we price the finite reserves of the most flexible fuel source ever discovered. There is so much low hanging fruit in the efficiency of things as mundane as our residential and commercial building stock (even ignoring industrial and transport) that the correct incease in energy costs coupled with incentives will lead to a huge boom in the manufacturing and installation of insulation. Yes, there is a risk that we'll arrive at the "wrong" price and trash the place, but even in there were no greenhouse effect, this (increasing the price of cargo) is a national security and infrastruture priority. Germany manages to be the worlds #1 or #2 exporter despite substantially higher energy prices, so I'm not seeing an economic apolcalypse from the current proposals.

But enough from me - I'm curious as to how the theory of global climate change violates any of the laws of thermodynamics. Would seem to be an elementary gaping hole if it did.

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

r.ennis — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 00:29:08 GMT

I hope you are not implyimg that "climate science" is not open to debate with biologists, chemists, pysicists and other technically astute individuals who (also) know something about the first, second and third laws of thermodynamics also who may disagree. Are you?

re: Carbon Trading: What Europe Can Actually Teach Us

lance00002001 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:37:38 GMT

Why does all of the discussion on this topic religiously avoid reports from souces like the Leipzig Geophysical Inst, and several others, that the world has been cooling since 1999 and is expected to go on cooling until 2030? It would seem very possible that good science and time will be adequate to deal with the problem without the tax grab of cap and trade, which is really intended to finance social change quite divorced from the environment. Why do contributors to TNR continue to pretend that the science behind climate change is settled for good?

re: Harry Reid, Not Very Pugilistic Ex-Boxer

Brad Plumer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:32:47 GMT

Yeah, I think the question is whether a more aggressive Pelosi-style approach would've been more effective during the stimulus debate. I'm honestly not sure one way or the other.

re: Harry Reid, Not Very Pugilistic Ex-Boxer

acria multa — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:16:40 GMT

IMHO, the way the stimulus was gutted of it's most effective portions in the Senate shows pretty clearly that that Reid's methods are in fact, totally ineffective. Today's unemployment figures bear that out.

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

Brad Plumer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:40:27 GMT

Yes, just wait until you hear the shocking truth of how the fields of biology, chemistry, and physics operate. It's a real scandal.

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

r.ennis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:24:22 GMT

Team Obama is now selling Cap and Trade as a "jobs bill" despite actual experience in Europe that shows it is a job inhibitor.

'Cap and Trade Dementia' [Greg Pollowitz]

NRO contributor Peter Ferrara has a long piece over on the AmSpec blog:

Barack Obama called for House passage of the cap and trade tax bill last Friday by calling it a jobs bill. The bill is designed to raise the price of energy in the U.S. so much that it will reduce the use of fossil fuels by 17% by 2020 and by 83% by 2050. Sentencing the U.S. economy to high cost energy is not a particularly good strategy for creating jobs. The Charles River Associates, a Harvard based economics consulting firm, estimates a net loss of jobs from the bill of about 2.5 million each year.

This is surely a gross underestimate of the net job losses from a bill designed to reduce the use of fossil fuels to the level in 1907. All those soccer moms better get used to riding their horses to the grocery store and back. And their husbands better get used to working the farms again, by hand, as high cost energy will chase remaining American manufacturing out of the country to India and China, which do not suffer from Al Gore's delusions about supposed global warming.

Yet Barack Obama calls it a jobs bill. This reflects a by now well-established pattern of deceptive, misdirection rhetoric, raising broadly appealing ideals in promotion of policies that would do just the opposite. For example, Obama is also trying to sell us a new health care entitlement, larger than any of our already grossly overgrown entitlements we can't finance, with the argument that it will actually reduce costs, even while CBO estimates that it will increase Federal spending by $1.6 trillion (woefully underestimated).

And worse news for Obama, the American people understand this:

Recent polls show the truth about global warming has broken through to the American people. A recent Zogby poll found Americans oppose cap and trade 57% to 30%. The latest Rasmussen poll finds that 42% think the House passed cap and trade bill will hurt the economy, with only 19% agreeing with President Obama that it will help the economy. Another Rasmussen poll found that only 34% now believe humans cause global warming, the lowest polling yet and a reversal from a year ago. Gallup says a record high 41% of Americans now say global warming has been exaggerated, and "Gore has failed — the public is just not that concerned" about global warming. Other surveys find Americans ranking global warming dead last among issues of concern.

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

r.ennis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:17:56 GMT

So an "actual climate scientist" is someone whose work is accepted by other "actual climate acientists". I get it.

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

Brad Plumer — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:36:27 GMT

Someone who's done/doing peer-reviewed research in the field? Seems like a good definition to me, though I'm open to better ones.

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

r.ennis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:47:27 GMT

Another thing. What qualifies someone ro be an "actual climate scientist" anyway?

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

pdx1 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:32:44 GMT

great post!

re: Is A Half-Assed Climate Bill Worth Supporting? Probably.

r.ennis — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:29:14 GMT

You should be insisting that Renewable Fuels Standard is going in the wrong direction. By 2020, approximately 15% of our transportation fuel will be corn or soy based. At current subsidy rate, we are talking $115 billion per year by then. What a colossal giveaway agriculture and agribusiness. Your silence in this manner compared to your carping on fossil fuels is deafening. I think that counts as hypocrisy.