Rossputin.com Rational Thinking About Our World

This is the eighth 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 me (Rossputin) to Dr. Bauman's most recent contribution to the debate:

Dr. Bauman,

Thanks again for continuing this interesting debate.

Let me address your “Cases in point”:

#1) About the IPCC and Pat Michaels: Despite my admiration for Jerry Taylor, having spoken with Pat Michaels myself and having read a fair bit of his writing, I think Jerry slightly (but importantly) misrepresents what Michaels says. Michaels, in my view, and you should read for yourself, does NOT say that "anthropogenic emissions are the main driver behind the warming trend of the past several decades" nor that the IPCC reports are "fairly reasonable". Michaels says that anthropogenic emissions might be a small factor, but controlling them in the way we see proposed these days is far too expensive compared to the very tiny possible benefit. Here's another quote from Michaels: "Al Gore and his minions continue to chant that "the science is settled" on global warming, but the only thing settled is that there has not been any since 1998."

Regarding IPCC, here's a Michaels quote which is far less accepting than you or Taylor implies that Michaels is: "Proponents of wild legislation like to point to the 2007 science compendium from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, deemed so authoritative it was awarded half of last year's Nobel Peace Prize. (The other half went to Al Gore.) In it there are dozens of computer-driven projections for 21st-century warming. Not one of them projects that the earth's natural climate variability will shut down global warming from carbon dioxide for two decades. Yet, that is just what has happened." And here's a whole article about how Michaels and another climate scientist disputed IPCC data and reworked it...to learn that the corrected IPCC data looks a lot like satellite data, i.e. not showing nearly the warming that the IPCC puts out in its propaganda press releases.

I have spoken with Michaels in person in the past few months about these very issues. And his written work backs up my understanding of his views. So, despite the fact that Taylor and Michaels are both affiliated with Cato, I believe I understand Michaels' views on this as well as Taylor.

#2) You can't seriously believe that anybody can predict what the climate will be 10 years from now, much less 15 or 20 or 30 or 50 years. The fact that the planet has not warmed in a decade, and the forecasters are now predicting cooling for the next several years has infinitely more weight than flawed computer models predicting the distant future. As for critical comments about the IPCC report, the problem is that the IPCC never includes them, and certainly never prominently, in their propaganda, even when the criticism comes from IPCC members.

#3) Jerry Taylor admitted a typo when he wrote "4000+" instead of "400+" scientists had signed an anti-global-warming-statement. So, in case "400+" isn't enough for you, here's 31,000, including over 9,000 PhDs. As for the precautionary principle, it's being twisted by climate alarmists in a very dangerous way. Basically they are saying that we'd better do something now in order to prevent disaster later. The problem is that the evidence about impending doom is getting weaker and weaker every day. (Did you see that NOAA just predicted fewer hurricanes, where they've incorrectly predicted more hurricanes for several years and blamed global warming each time?) And, the cost of what the alarmists propose is truly massive. It's not like saying, let's just switch from Apple Jacks to Frosted Flakes. The costs of cap-and-trade, Kyoto, etc, are huge. Warner-Lieberman will cost billions of dollars in GDP and millions of jobs. So, it's not about precaution. It's about destroying capitalism now under the guise of protecting the environment 50 years from now...despite evidence of warming (and of potential damage from warming) evaporating daily.

Regarding, distractions, all I can say is "you started it", and I thought my note about your blind acceptance of the IPCC as somehow inherently fair and non-partisan when it comes from a blatantly anti-American, anti-Capitalist (and, not that it's relevant, anti-Semitic) organization (the UN) was rather on-point.

To your questions:

1) Do I agree that anthropogenic warming is a theoretical possibility? Yes, but not to any important degree and certainly not to any degree worth destroying economies or liberty over. I mean, a Flying Spaghetti Monster is a theoretical possibility, as is the possibility of climate change being caused by the world's number of pirates. But seriously, I think that man-caused warming is a possible effect on climate change to the same degree that I think changing the shape of a cell-phone antenna on a car is a factor in the car's fuel efficiency. Sure, it could theoretically affect the situation by a fraction of a percent, but that's it. Actually, I don't think man-caused warming is nearly as significant or nearly as certain to be true as how much changing the antenna on top of a car might affect its mileage.

2) Do I accept the scientific findings of the IPCC? Absolutely not. And I do not believe Jerry Taylor is "on board" either, but let's ask for clarification. The evidence against the integrity of the IPCC is too large to be ignored. It's ridiculous to say that "almost all of the world's scientists are in rough agreement with the IPCC". I defy you to back up that statement, especially in light of the Petition Project's most recent update.

3) Of course I'm willing to be involved in serious debate. What do you think I/we have been doing? But the alarmists aren't interested. Either they're like you...generally unwilling to listen to even the most objective criticisms of climate alarmists, or they're like the UN or IPCC, full of biases (whether political or personal) which make them dishonest debaters...on the rare occasion when they will actually debate someone. You're comment about the Professional Engineers of Colorado is a straw man. The event was not for the engineers to "evaluate climate science" but just to hear a debate and conclude what they might. If you think engineers aren't up to thinking about this, what does that mean your opinion is of the average voter?

I'm not surprised that the alarmists won't debate if they can avoid it. Intelligence Squared is an organization that holds "Oxford-style" debates in front of audiences in NYC and polls the audiences before and after the debate to see who got the better of it. In March, 2007, they had a debate, the title and subject of which was "Global Warming is not a crisis". The poll results, which you can see here, were that 57% of the audience disagreed with that statement (i.e. they believed global warming is a crisis) before the debate, with 30% for the statement and 13% undecided. After the debate, 46% were for the statement, 42% against, and just under 12% undecided. In other words, the debate moved the balance from 27% more believing warming is a crisis to 4% more believing it isn't. I think this will happen any time there is an evenly-matched debate on the issue.

So, Yoram, until you and people like you demonstrate that you have the slightest open mind toward believing that the IPCC "information" might be wrong, either because of bad data collection, faulty computer models, or simply bias in the process, I don't see reason to spend a lot more time debating, especially when so much effort toward a rational conversation likes this still leaves you asking whether I'm "willing to be involved in serious engagements about climate science"? It's so disappointingly typical of a climate change alarmist to suggest that the discussion isn't serious if the other side disagrees. It's like what's meant by "bi-partisanship" in DC: It's when conservative legislators cross the aisle to pass liberal laws, but it's never the other way around.