"Those who have
knowledge, don't predict. Those who
predict, don't have knowledge. "
--Lao Tzu, 6th Century BC Chinese Poet
********************************************
IS THE TIDE TURNING? Are we close to the ‘tipping point’ when the
public will reject the UN-IPCC, the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
nonsense, and the alarmists among scientists, media, and politicians? Read on and rejoice!
A climate model exercise, published in Nature (May 1),
predicts cooling for the next decade.
But before rejoicing, let’s take a closer look [ITEM #1]
The NIPCC SPM+TS (Summary for Policymakers and
Technical Summary) “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
is going into massive printing and will also be available in German and Italian
(initially). SEPP donors can receive a
complimentary copy. It can be viewed in
pdf format on the SEPP home page -- and in E-book format (to be announced
soon). [ITEM #2]
London election for Mayor: A referendum on Global Warming – an omen for the future? [ITEM
#3]
The public is getting tired of GW. Gore may need more than $300 million, esp.
if the climate refuses to warm [ITEM #4]
GW fears are distorting energy decisions and raising the
price of everything: food, electricity, gasoline, gas [ITEM #5]
Smear campaigns against Climate Realists (a better choice
than ‘Climate Deniers’) [ITEM #6]
US politicians like Cap & Trade regulation better
than an energy tax [ITEM#7]. Meanwhile,
the UN soldiers on to draft a successor to the Kyoto Protocol – in Copenhagen
2009 – and the EU is fighting European industry giants who see financial ruin
in GW mitigation.
We don’t know when the GW bubble
will burst. Will it be when the IPCC
science is exposed as shoddy and their climate models are shown to be
invalid? Or when the climate cooling
causes real hardships and makes GW desirable?
Or when GW mitigation hits the pocketbook of the average citizen? Or when politicians sense the mood of the
public and decide to speak out and take action?
****************************************
Good reading:
Chill
Out on Climate Hysteria: The Earth is currently cooling. By Deroy Murdock,
May 02, 2008
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc1MzdjOWEwMWUyNGMwYzkxMjMzZWIzMjE5NDc3MGQ=
The authoritative article on polar
bears, www.aei.org/publication27918
News you can use:
Group warns of global warming alarmism
Excerpt: A touring political rally designed to highlight the "dangers
of global warming alarmism" made a stop in downtown Oklahoma City this
week. The so-called "Hot Air Tour" is sponsored by an anti-tax group
called Americans for Prosperity. Speakers gathering stood in front of a mock
hot air balloon that was printed with this statement: "Global warming alarmism:
lost jobs, higher taxes, less freedom."
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1490526/
News you can do without:
Invasion of giant squid blamed on
global warming - LA Times
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/05/jumbo-squid-pho.html
Middle school kids fear global
warming - NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/04buswe.html?_r=1&ref=nyregionspecial2&oref=slogin
Lord
Nicholas Stern, author of the notorious ‘Stern Report’ warns that “Climate
Change is Considerably Worse Than Previously Estimated,” The Independent,
April 17, 2008. We have not heard
recently from the peerless Sir David King, former UK Science Adviser and
Chief Climate Alarmist.
*****************************************************************************
Princeton
physics professor John Archibald Wheeler has passed away at age 96. He was my thesis supervisor, mentor, and
friend. He pioneered the theory of
nuclear fission and of ‘black holes’ – among many other contributions. Read this obituary from the LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-wheeler15apr15,1,4081990.story
################################################
1. SEPP
TAKES A COLD LOOK AT THE NATURE (MAY 1) PAPER, PROMISING A COOL DECADE
Noel Keenlyside et
al. "Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic
sector
Abstract: The
climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal
timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include
hurricane activity in the Atlantic, and surface-temperature and rainfall
variations over North America, Europe and northern Africa......Our results
suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade,
as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific
temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.
Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine
Sciences, Kiel, Germany, is quoted: "The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C
warming over the next decade. Our
prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after
that." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we all go overboard
about the paper in Nature that predicts another decade of cooling, let’s
stop and ask some questions:
1. The claim
that natural climate fluctuations can and do overwhelm the ‘expected’ warming
from an increase in GH gases is not only plausible but fairly certain. But we knew that; see NIPCC report “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the
Climate” http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
NIPCC presents convincing evidence that the human
influence (from greenhouse gases) is not significant and that natural
variations dominate climate variations on all time scales.
But this means that the IPCC
climate models have all overestimated the ‘expected’ warming. The likely reason is that they incorporate a
‘positive feedback’ from water vapor that amplifies the meager warming from
CO2. The actual feedback is likely to
be negative. The Nature authors
don’t spell this out.
2. As I understand it, the claim is that by using a set of initial
values of actual ocean data they find circulation changes that lead to a
temporary (a decade or so) cooling. But
the accuracy and completeness of such ocean data is dubious. So how sensitive is the result to small
errors in the initial values? More
important, since models can run time backwards, will the same initial values
simulate the climate of the past decade.
[Note that over such short periods the GH effect is not relevant; the
model tests mainly the dynamics of the ocean circulation.]
Based on what we know about climate
models, we are not convinced yet that the predicted cooling is caused by internal
natural forcing. There is a good chance
that the observed lack of warming is
caused by external natural forcing, i.e. by the Sun.
“I don’t make climate predictions because I don’t
know what the Sun will do next, but analysis of the best data of the past 30
years has convinced me that the human contribution has been insignificant — in
spite of the real rise in atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas.” – S.Fred
Singer, as quoted by Deroy Murdock http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTc1MzdjOWEwMWUyNGMwYzkxMjMzZWIzMjE5NDc3MGQ=
3. Finally,
if changes in ocean dynamics can produce cooling, then an appropriate set of
initial conditions must exist that produces a warming (natural) trend. It seems to me this shows that a warming
trend per se cannot be used to support anthropogenic warming unless it persists
for at least several decades.
****************
The NIPCC SPM+TS
(Summary for Policymakers and Technical Summary) “Nature, Not Human
Activity, Rules the Climate” http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf
is going into massive printing and will
also be available in German and Italian
(initially). SEPP donors can receive a
complimentary copy. It is available in
pdf format on the SEPP home page -- and in E-book format (to be announced
soon). A badge of honor: ABC World News reports (March 23) that
(unnamed) climate scientists at NASA, Princeton, and Stanford consider the NIPCC report “fraudulent nonsense.” We think we know who they are and would love
to ask them – preferably while under oath—whether they really told this to ABC
or whether ABC invented the quote.
****************************************************************
3.
CLIMATE REALIST BORIS JOHNSON IS LONDON'S NEW MAYOR: BEATS LIVINGSTONE
■ Boris Johnson claimed a remarkable victory
in the London mayoral contest on Friday night to cap a disastrous series of
results for Gordon Brown in his first electoral test as Prime Minister. Mr
Johnson's landmark victory, a result that would have been almost unthinkable
six months ago, was the most symbolic blow to Mr Brown's authority on a day
that left the Prime Minister facing the gravest crisis of his leadership. --
--Andrew Porter and Robert Winnett, The Daily
Telegraph, 3 May 2008
■ Mr Livingstone made clear he views 1 May as a
referendum on his policies to tackle climate change and protect the health of
Londoners. Aides claimed it would be the first election in British history to
be decided largely on environmental issues. --The London Evening Standard, 25 March 2008
■ Londoners now face a stark choice. Boris
Johnson is an environmental vandal, whose main contribution to environmental
policy was as a cheerleader for George W Bush's disastrous decision to oppose
the Kyoto climate treaty. The election is neck and neck and everyone who cares
about the environment needs to vote with the first and second preferences for
myself and Sian Berry if we are to stop Boris Johnson wrecking London's
environment.'
--Ken Livingstone, 25 April 2008
■ There are a hundred reasons why Boris
Johnson should not be Mayor of London. But his dinosaur views on the
environment alone are enough to show what a disaster he would be for our city.
The man who backed Bush against the Kyoto treaty and who doesn't believe
there's a risk from passive smoking cannot be trusted with our future - or
even, really, with his own. He's a 19th century man in a 21st century city
--Sian Berry, Green Party, 25 April
2008
■ Under a climate change denier like Boris
Johnson, we would have to fear for our futures, and for the jobs of all the
hundreds who work for us. We would also have to fear for the physical security
of the city itself, under the assault of unmitigated global warming, were
others to follow Johnson's 'lead' on climate change.
--Jeremy Leggett, SolarCentury,
25 April 2008
■ The prospect of Boris as Mayor of London is
just so scary. The prospect of Boris taking over London's Climate Change Action
Plan is even scarier. He may have learnt not to reveal his full contrarian
bigotry on climate change, but he really doesn't get it, and would rapidly
scale back or completely get rid off the ambitious targets in the Action Plan.
And that would be a massive set back. I just hope all the environmental NGOs
can rally the troops in London in a pro-Ken campaign, even if they can't come out
and explicitly endorse him.
--Jonathon Porritt, Sustainable Development Commission, March 2008
■ The hypocrisy of the Europeans over Kyoto is
staggering. They attack America in hysterical terms, and yet the 15 EU
countries have never come close to meeting their own eight per cent target for
cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. They have not even agreed which countries
should cut the most. If America were to meet its Kyoto targets now, it would
require a cut of 30 per cent in emissions, and how, exactly, is that supposed
to work in the current economic downturn? It would exacerbate the recession,
and when Bush says no, he is doing what is right not just for America but for
the world.
--Boris Johnson, The Daily Telegraph,
April 2001. All
quotes courtesy of CCNET
****************************************
4.
THE PUBLIC TIRES OF GW PROPAGANDA
The public may be getting tired of hearing about climate change, esp when they learn that the climate is cooling not warming. Many are getting confused -as they did from the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” and ask: “How can global warming cause a cooler climate? Anyway, the average voter does not really care about Global Warming http://www.newsweek.com/id/133652/output/print and may say: “Let’s wait until 2020 and see if the climate really warms.” Al Gore’s $300 million propaganda campaign may not be enough to persuade the public to undergo economic hardships to avoid a fictitious climate catastrophe.
************************************************
5. CONSEQUENCES OF GLOBAL
WARMING FEARS
GW fears are distorting
energy policies in Europe and North America and are raising the price of
electricity, transportation, heating, and food – all essentials. Forcing the use of natural gas for electric
generation in place of cheaper coal is not only raising electric power costs
but also the price of gas. In turn,
this raises the cost of fertilizer – and of food. The scarcity of gas may mean LNG imports for the US and greater dependence on Russian supplies for
Europe.
It will get worse if electric utilities are forced to buy more ‘renewable energy’ (from uneconomic and unreliable wind and solar) at premium prices. It will get much worse if coal-fired powerplants are forced to use CCS (carbon capture and sequestration).
The ethanol/bio-fuel
boondoggle may have played itself out – although lobbyists are trying hard to
persuade governments to keep and enlarge a variety of subsidies. Not only is ethanol uneconomic but it may
lead to additional CO2 emissions from land-clearing. Forests throughout the world will suffer – and enlightened
environmentalists are getting upset – finally.
All these mistaken GW policies are causing distress for low-income groups, food riots in poor nations, and other kinds of societal and international problems. And the irony is that all policies designed to reduce CO2 emissions are pointless since CO2 isn’t a significant cause of climate change.
The main cause is natural and therefore unstoppable.
*********************************************************
6. THE SMEAR MACHINES
Global warming fanatics are becoming desperate. With no good arguments to defend the dogma of AGW, they increasingly resort to smear tactics and ad hominem attacks. Just check out ExxonSecrets, SourceWatch or desmogblog. These are staffed by professionals who have no appreciable scientific background but are paid – and paid well – to sling mud. Prominent climate skeptics are attacked s being ‘corrupt,’ in the pay of oil companies, or part of the tobacco lobby. Even Wkipedia has been taken over by these types who manage to put libelous accusations into Wiki biographies. For example, Fred Singer is supposed to believe in Martians –a real wacko. In other places, FS is ‘linked’ (whatever that word means) to the Rev. Moon, Lyndon LaRouche, and the John Birch Society. The venerable but not always reliable magazine Science has even ‘linked’ me to the George C. Marshall Institute. Horrors!
*******************************************************
7. CAPPERS & TRADERS
All three US presidential candidates are on record in support of Cap and Trade legislation for CO2 emissions. John McCain has not announced quantitative targets.
It’s a thoroughly bad scheme, not working in Europe, and not likely to work in the US.
===================================================
Letter to Editor: Comments on ‘Combating Global Warming’
by Ian W.H. Parry and William A. Pizer [Resources
for the Future]
Regulation Vol. 30 Fall 2007, pp. 18-22
Is taxation or cap-and-trade the better strategy for
reducing greenhouse emissions? One
would think this matter has been adequately discussed over the past 40 years by
environmental economists and others. It is well known that taxation can fix the
price of emitting the pollutant but not the amount, while cap-and-trade
determines the quantity emitted, but doesn’t set the price. These two approaches are equivalent to some
extent except that economists generally prefer a tax and politicians prefer
cap-and-trade. One reason for this is
that the geniuses at RFF sometime back invented something called a ‘soft
cap.’ The idea is that when the price
of emission rights rises too far, one could relax the cap and therefore
moderate the price.
You can see why politicians would like this. It allows Congress to do what it does best,
namely to grant political favors. It
gives them the possibility of interfering with the market by changing the cap
according to the wishes of their major supporters. The fact that it destroys property values of those who hold
emission rights in order to benefit
those who want them seems to be secondary.
Now, I maybe a curmudgeon, a troglodyte, or a
dinosaur, but I’m certainly not a Scrooge.
I don’t begrudge economists the few million dollars a year to carry out
these kind of arcane discussions. But I
should point out that they really amount to intellectual masturbation. There are three points that need to be
considered:
1. Carbon dioxide is quite ineffective in
influencing climate change, contrary to the (published) graph that indicates
the (very imperfect) correlation with surface temperature. The correlation with atmospheric
temperatures is even worse. And the
fact that atmospheric temperatures in recent decades do not show the trends
expected from greenhouse-gas models is a final argument against CO2 influence
on climate. Evidently, climate models
cannot represent adequately what is happening in the real atmosphere, including
strong negative feedbacks from clouds and water vapor that diminish the
effects of CO2. Evidently also, natural
forcings, primarily solar variations, are far more important than any
anthropogenic forcing from the rise in greenhouse gases.
2. Many competent economists agree that a modest
warming is beneficial, would raise GNP and average income, and is much to be
preferred to a cooling. Logically, a
warming and a cooling cannot both be bad; otherwise the present climate would
have to be optimum – an unlikely occurrence.
But if warming creates benefits, then the endless efforts to do
cost-benefit analyses, for example in the British Stern Report, are clearly a
waste of time.
3. Finally, we have the fact, unlikely to change,
that emissions from developing countries, especially China, now dominate the
annual growth rates of carbon dioxide.
Trying to impose controls on U.S. emissions therefore is like ‘spitting
in the wind.’ There have been some
misguided schemes proposed, for example by Stewart and Wiener [in an AEI book],
to make a deal with China whereby the United States essentially subsidizes
Chinese emissions. We haven’t heard
much about this proposal in the last few years.
To sum up, perhaps economists should heed the advice
of Bjorn Lomborg and “cool it” -- and figure out better ways of spending scarce
resources on real problems rather than on non-problems like anthropogenic
global warming.
S. FRED SINGER
********************************************