This is the seventh in a series of articles with "Stand-up Economist" Yoram Bauman taking the pro-global-warming-alarmism position and being debated by me and other more expert people such as the Cato Institute's Jerry Taylor and the Heartland Institute's James Taylor. The entire series should be able to be found by searching my blog for "Bauman", with this link:
http://www.rossputin.com/blog/index.php/a?s=bauman&sentence=AND&submit=Search

This response is by James Taylor, of the Heartland Institute, to Dr. Bauman's most recent contribution to the debate:

As best as I can tell, here are Mr. Bauman’s arguments that are sent in my direction:

1. Bauman asserts that the scientists who predict still more global cooling over the next 15-20 years believe temperatures will eventually begin warming after that. Boy, I certainly hope so! Another 15-20 years of global cooling will mean that 20 years from now, cooling temperature trends will have dominated 60 of the prior 80 years. If temperatures DON’T start warming again then, we will once again hear about how humans are causing the onset of another ice age, as was asserted in the 1970s.

2. Bauman asserts that older scientists have no credibility. To the contrary, their extra years of learning and their observations that these alternate warming/cooling scares have been advocated since they were young children provides valuable expertise and perspective.

3. Bauman asserts that alarmist scientists pulled out of debate because the annual conference of the Professional Engineers of Colorado (PEC) is not sufficiently scientific. This is argument is one solely of misdirection. If the alarmists were inclined to talk at the PEC conference in the first place – which they were – but then pulled out when they learned they would have to defend their assertions, what is the relevance of PEC being the audience? As soon as the alarmists saw they were being called upon to engage in real scientific debate, they quickly searched for the first chair to hide under.

4. Bauman asserts that the National Academy of Sciences, etc., are all “card-carrying climate change alarmists.” Not so. Many scientists who belong to such groups and who are very skeptical of alarmist global warming theory report that they were never surveyed on their opinions. A handful of board members have made pronouncements regarding global warming, but did not make any effort to ascertain what the participating scientists themselves believe. Moreover, these “card-carrying climate change alarmists” -- even in the limited capacity in which they speak -- have qualified their assertions with many caveats and admissions that the verdict is still out. Compare the qualified comments of a handful of board members to the now more than 31,000 scientists (updated list released May 19) who have signed on to a 12-page comprehensive summary of evidence contradicting alarmist global warming theory.

5. Bauman asserts that 50 years into the future is too long a timetable to set a bet. OK, then how about 10 years, or 20 years, or 30 years? None of the IPCC models predicted cooling temperatures over the past 10 years, nor did any IPCC models predict cooling for an additional 15-20 years as is now being asserted. It is quite curious that alarmists now claim that 30 years of global cooling would be compatible with alarmist global warming theory, even though none of their models predicted or even allowed for it. Is there a single current or future development that they would admit contradicts their theory? If the planet warms, this is proof of a human-induced global warming crisis. If the planet cools, this is proof of a human-induced global warming crisis. If it rains, this is proof of a human-induced global warming crisis. If there is no rain, this is proof of a human-induced global warming crisis. If Al Gore stubs his toe coming out of the shower, this is proof of a human-induced global warming crisis. Give me a break!

All that being said, Mr. Bauman is always welcome at my house for Thanksgiving dinner (as for my brother being invited, however, that's another matter....) To save the planet, we will even forego the greenhouse-gas emitting turkey this year!

James M. Taylor
Senior Fellow, Environment Policy
The Heartland Institute
taylor@heartland.org