Print This Post Print This Post

Is The Debate Really Over?


My biggest disappointment at the Freedom Fest was the great Global Warming Debate moderated by Michael Medved. While they brought up credentialed scientists to debate both sides, the format lacked seriousness and clarity.

How much that AGW is used for gaining political power is irrelevant.  Some skeptics invoke religious themes, though they did not do that in this format where so many libertarians are atheists.

The only germane topic is whether there is or there is not a dangerous level of AGW and if there is, what is the best solution.

Most of us do not understand the science and thus depend on the authority of others and toward that end there is this ‘consensus’ we hear about.  Specifically we hear about a 97% consensus, but now the subject leaves science and goes into the realm of statistics and the nature of knowledge.

The 97% number raises a lot of red flags. For such a field that is fraught with so many variables such a consensus causes skepticism. In the realm of social research it strongly suggests a self-confirming bias.

I have not received satisfactory answers to such questions as:

Who was included in the 97% number? How big a sample is that? What per cent of the scientists is that?

What determines the consensus? What questions were asked?

When these questions get asked this consensus falls apart pretty quickly. Is there any consensus that any of the proposed actions to remediate this problem will work?

When the consensus falls apart, then it becomes clear that the debate is not over.

The right falls apart when they make it all about politics, and the left falls apart when they discredit any serious questions as anti-science as if it is the equivalent of creationism, or when they discredit every voice as a tool of the oil industry.   They do not advance the realm of science by sounding like religious fanatics. The less tolerant of dissent,  the weaker the argument.

Print This Post Print This Post

Biogenic Carbon

Old MacDonald Had a . . . Climate Offender, from Bruce Dale at The Wall Street Journal

A basic fact about agricultural products such as grains and oilseeds is that the carbon in them, called biogenic carbon, came from the atmosphere. Biogenic carbon will return to the atmosphere when these products are consumed, such as when human beings eat bread and then breathe out the carbon dioxide resulting from the breakdown of bread in the body. Biogenic carbon therefore cannot contribute to climate change.

Why is the Environmental Protection Agency denying this basic fact of climate science? The EPA is counting biogenic-carbon emissions as if they were the same as fossil-carbon emissions. They are not the same. Carbon atoms emitted by burning fossil fuels are, in effect, on a one-way trip from the ground to the atmosphere, where they will stay for hundreds of millions of years. In contrast, carbon atoms taken from the atmosphere to make agricultural products are on a round trip from the atmosphere to farms then back to the atmosphere.

The EPA intends to penalize American farmers and those who make modern energy and bioproducts such as plastics from agricultural feedstocks by treating biogenic carbon like fossil carbon. As part of its approach, the EPA is now attempting to regulate “sustainability” in the farm field.

The EPA is trying to put itself in charge of regulating farms—an outstanding example of “mission creep” and bureaucratic overreach. Regulating agriculture is not the EPA’s job—we already have an Agriculture Department. The EPA’s approach would demand proof of exactly which farm produced every pound of corn, wheat, soy or cottonseed used by customers of those farms—a practical impossibility in the U.S. agricultural system.


Should we be surprised that a bureaucracy who sees their mission to save the world have a problem with understanding any limit on their mission or power.

Print This Post Print This Post

The 97% Climate Fallacy

Print This Post Print This Post

Authoritarianism as Science


a gem from George Will in National Review, The ‘Settled’ Consensus du Jour


Four core tenets of progressivism are: First, history has a destination. Second, progressives uniquely discern it. (Barack Obama frequently declares things to be on or opposed to “the right side of history.”) Third, politics should be democratic but peripheral to governance, which is the responsibility of experts scientifically administering the regulatory state. Fourth, enlightened progressives should enforce limits on speech (witness IRS suppression of conservative advocacy groups) in order to prevent thinking unhelpful to history’s progressive unfolding.

Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism, is becoming explicit. Progressivism’s determination to regulate thought by regulating speech is apparent in the campaign by 16 states’ attorneys general and those of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, none Republican, to criminalize skepticism about the supposedly “settled” conclusions of climate science.

Print This Post Print This Post

Climate and Keynesian Economics

wizard of oz

From Phillip Magness, The ‘Climate Science’ MONIAC Machine

Economics has fortunately moved well beyond the days of the hydraulic MONIAC machine and its underlying assumptions about economic causality. We have since learned – sometimes the hard way – that the economy is simply too complex to causally map out as a precise system of policy levers that could shape production and commerce with reliable and predictable outcomes. Forecasting took a similar turn as well, moving away from drawing out trend lines that were backfilled to fit the predictions of overly simplified causal relationships. In its place, economics adopted the statistical conventions of modern forecasting tools with their associated cautions against making long range predictions and claims of precision.

In a strange way, modern climatology shares much in common with the approach of 1950s Keynesian macroeconomics. It usually starts with a number of sweeping assumptions about the relation between atmospheric carbon and temperature, and presumes to isolate them to specific forms of human activity. It then purports to “predict” the effects of those assumptions with extraordinarily great precision across many decades or even centuries into the future. It even has its own valves to turn and levers to pull – restrict carbon emissions by X%, and the average temperature will supposedly go down by Y degrees. Tax gasoline by X dollar amount, watch sea level rise dissipate by Y centimeters, and so forth. And yet as a testable predictor, its models almost consistently overestimate warming in absurdly alarmist directions and its results claim implausible precision for highly isolated events taking place many decades in the future. These faults also seem to plague the climate models even as we may still accept that some level of warming is occurring.