05/20/08
Yoram Bauman responds to global warming debate
This is the sixth 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 Yoram Bauman to our responses to his original article:
Thanks for the conversation, fellows, I’ve been enjoying it! But I do have three requests.
First, I’d like an invitation to the Taylor family compound for Thanksgiving, because I think there might be some bloodletting between Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, who says that he “actually agrees with almost all” of my original post, and James Taylor of the Heartland Institute, who says that my post is “inaccurate” and “a veritable journey into the looking glass, where black is white and white is black.” Pass the stuffing! (Maybe Jerry and I can take on James and Rossputin in a game of touch football. Or maybe tackle football would be better?)
Second, I’d like y’all to stop (mis)using statements from scientists who don’t really agree with your position on climate change.
Case in point #1: Rossputin writes that the IPCC excludes skeptics like Pat Michaels. But Pat Michaels is a Cato Institute colleague of Jerry Taylor, and Taylor writes that Michaels “agrees that anthropogenic emissions are the main driver behind the warming trend of the past several decades” and that “he thinks the IPCC reports are fairly reasonable (albeit not perfect) summaries of the scientific literature.”
Case in point #2: James Taylor writes about how “even IPCC scientists now report (in a recent Nature study) that temperatures will likely cool for at least the next decade.” But if you go into more depth—say, if you read this BBC article—you’ll find that the “group’s projection diverges from other computer models only for about 15-20 years; after that, the curves come back together and temperatures rise.” So is this article evidence for skepticism? No. Neither is the fact that the IPCC report received “thousands of critical comments from participating scientists.” Scientific criticism and disagreement is evidence of a healthy debate about the details, not a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy to Mislead the World.
Case in point #3: Jerry Taylor writes that an honest mistake led to his making a “wrong claim that 4000+ scientists signed an anti-global-warming statement." His response is that he “meant to say 400+ scientists signed the statement in question (the so-called Heidelberg Appeal).” Now, I agree that we all make honest mistakes---I’ve made plenty myself---but unless the text I found on Fred Singer’s SEPP website is mistaken, the Heidelberg Appeal actually says nothing about global warming. (Sorry to keep picking on this, Jerry, and by the way I think your point about the precautionary principle and Bush’s foreign policy is a good one, so good that I’ll try to bring it up in my environmental studies classes.)
Third, I’d like us all to honor a one-paragraph limit on distractions. The questions at hand are not about the UN’s treatment of Israel or about whether the American public believes in global warming. They’re also not about why a disproportionate number of the scientists in the skeptic camp are older than John McCain (William Gray, born 1929; Fred Singer, born 1924; Vincent Gray, born 1922!) or about why so many conservatives seem to believe in social Darwinism but not in Darwin’s theory of evolution. (You guys aren’t fighting that battle too, are you??? I hope you’re not going to have me expelled!) Captivating though they are, these are not the questions at hand, hence the one-paragraph limit.
The questions at hand are:
1) Do you agree that anthropogenic global warming is a theoretical possibility? It seems to me that we all agree the answer is Yes. This is terrific.
2) Are you willing to accept (at least in broad terms, if not in all the details) the scientific findings of the IPCC? Cato’s Jerry Taylor seems to be on board, but Heartland’s James Taylor and Rossputin still insist that there’s “collusion” and “corruption” at the IPCC. Economists tend to believe in competition, not conspiracy theories, especially when there’s no good story about the individual incentives that are driving almost all of the world’s scientists to be in rough agreement with the IPCC. If you can come up with good story about this you still won’t win a Nobel Prize for Chemistry, but you’ll have a shot at winning one for Literature.
3) Are you willing to be involved in serious engagements about climate science? My apologies to Heartland’s James Taylor for the confusion, but the Professional Engineers of Colorado is not the kind of scientific body I had in mind for evaluating climate science. How about the National Academy of Sciences, or the American Meteorological Society, or the American Geophysical Union, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science? Well, guess what: They’re all card-carrying “climate change alarmists” in that they find the evidence for anthropogenic global warming to be compelling.
PS to Heartland’s James Taylor: I’m happy to take your bet once you make it more scientifically precise---you and I can at least pretend to be real scientists even if we’re not---but I must note that 2050 is a long time from now. Until then, I’m going to cast my lot with the scientific consensus expressed by the IPCC and the actual scientific bodies cited above. And you can… well, you can cast your lot with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a group of 23 “scientists” that includes a non-PhD agricultural economist, a fellow who supposedly has a doctorate in welding technology, another non-PhD economist, and of course the non-PhD English lord with a background in classics, journalism, and the design of geometric “Eternity” puzzles. No wonder the Cato Institute is keeping its distance.
5 comments
on 05/20/08 at 08:36
I enjoyed your response - I have been following this subject in Rossputin’s blog (and elsewhere) for quite some time, and it’s great to see an exchange that doesn’t devolve into ad-hom’s. (Although the age issue was irrelevant and might I say alarmingly politically incorrect.)
You mentioned that the “National Academy of Sciences, … the American Meteorological Society, … the American Geophysical Union, [and] the American Association [are] all card-carrying ‘climate change alarmists’ in that they find the evidence for anthropogenic global warming [AGW] to be compelling.”
Question 1): Has anyone ever polled the individual members of those institutions to determine their individual beliefs? Apart from the certainty that “truth” and “consensus” are not necessarily subsets of one another, the policy statements of those organizations are not voted upon by the membership, but are written and approved by a very few upper echelon wonks whose belief in “compelling” evidence of AGW may or may not coincide with that of the total membership.
Question 2): I have yet to find a scientist who believes that any rational response to the putative AGW crisis will result in any real anthropogenic global ‘cooling.’ (Talk of reducing CO2 emissions to 20% or 30% of 1990 levels, or of current levels is not rational.). The question therefore, is, “What good will any viable response do, and what will it cost?”
Best,
Greg Staff
1) I don't know about polling individual members. I can tell you from my own experience at the University of Washington (a huge research university) that folks who are vocal about disagreeing with the consensus are few and far between. For example, Elizabeth Kolbert's book "Field Notes from a Catastrophe" was chosen as the common book last year (meaning that a copy was sent to all incoming first-year students) and maybe one person complained. (I spent 5 minutes trying to find the disagreement online and failed, so that should tell you something.) University faculty tend to be vocal about all kinds of slights, perceived and otherwise, so I take this as pretty strong evidence.
2) My understanding is that anything we do to reduce CO2 emissions will have at least some impact on reducing projected temperature increases. Once you start talking about "rational" responses and cost you're more in the realm of economics rather than hard science, and there are lots of debates about cost-benefit analysis and things like that. My own view is that at the very least we should replace some or all of our existing tax system with a carbon tax. It is difficult to argue that a carbon tax would be less efficient than the lousy tax system we have now, so even if global warming turns out to be wrong it's not obvious that we're worse off with a carbon tax than with the tax system we have now, and of course if global warming turns out to be real then having a carbon tax actually promotes economic efficiency (the so-called "double dividend").
Just to give you an example of the math: In Washington State (where I live), we have annual emissions of roughly 100 million tons of CO2, and state tax revenue of about $15 billion a year. A carbon tax of $100 per ton of CO2 ($1 per gallon of gasoline) would probably generate about $8 billion per year, meaning that you could get rid of the $2 billion state property tax and the $3 billion state business tax and a chunk of the $8 billion state sales tax. What's not to like about that?
You can't seriously argue that what you see in a university environment is a decent representation of the real world, or even of the scientific world. No wonder reality doesn't penetrate, if you think that if something doesn't fit in with the University paradigm then it must not fit anywhere! Furthermore, you make one important (and valid) qualification when you say that people who are vocal about disagreeing with climate alarmism are uncommon. First, would you want to get into an argument with cult members, especially if there weren't a lot of benefit for you in having the argument? And second, since there is more research money in investigating a crisis than in investigating a lack of a crisis, don't you realize that universities and other research institutions (including NASA) have a vested interest in having skeptics stay silent, and that skeptics in those organizations would likely lean that way just so their colleagues can get grant money, even if it's based on junk science?
What's not to like about the $8 billion carbon tax that Washington state might collect is that it will NOT be used to get rid of any other taxes. It will simply be used to expand government. It will also cause tremendous unemployment would be a net economic negative no matter what other taxes you eliminated with that money.
Ross
on 05/20/08 at 11:58
I appreciate the reply.
Indeed, cost benefit is the real crux of the matter. Having “…at least some impact on reducing projected temperature increases” (emphasis on “some”) is not really what I would call an unmitigated calling to start a whole new tax. (More on that in a bit).
An example: In the 1970s, the US reduced the maximum speed limit nation-wide from as much as 80 mph to 55 mph (in fact there was no daylight speed limit in parts of Montana and I think Nevada). There was no argument that it conserved “at least some” gasoline and in fact there was “at least some” decrease in highway fatalities. But “at least some” was not enough to keep the 55 mph in place, and it succumbed to the political and economic pressures of the electorate. The cost/benefit was not there.
Similarly, “at least some” impact on reducing projected temperature increases is not definitive enough of a metric to justify the sweeping bureaucratic miasma that will result from cap and trade or even a “simple” carbon tax. Speaking of the tax, your explanation is the first I’ve heard of anyone wanting to replace part of the existing system with a carbon tax system. While the current system is certainly fraught with inequities, a carbon tax would be the most oppressive on those who could afford it least. Then we’d likely have to have “deductions,” carbon use schedules, carbon amortization schemes, carbon/alimony offsets, car-size justification charts, etc.
One last point – I cannot imagine an academic setting today where faculty would shout from the rooftops that AGW is a hoax. So many schools receive so much research grant money due to AGW, that such a proclamation wold certainly mean certain academic death.
Which of the following two grant proposals gets funded?:
1) Variances over the past century of Monarch Butterfly Migration Patterns
2) Effect of Climate Change on Monarch Butterfly Migration Patterns
I fear I am rambling on past the one paragraph limit.
Greg
on 05/20/08 at 14:59
Yoram,
My response to your first argument was a bit flippant as I thought the argument to be over simplistic and confused on many levels but since you persist, let's have a look at some of the flaws here.
1. Looking for an admission that anthropogenic warming is pointless and demonstrates nothing other than having an open mind to possibilities. The fact that I will concede the possibility does nothing to further your argument whatsoever. I suppose it is a ground state from which we may at least know that I am not a cult like fanatic (like most warmers appear to be) who takes specious argument from scientific 'authorities' as irrefutable pseudo-religious gospel.
2. While I do not reject the IPCC out of hand I believe them to be an extremely dubious source of sound science.
First of all, the same argument you would use to refute and discredit those who argue against anthropogenic warming and/or warming more generally applies to the IPCC. They are not all or even mostly climatologists but instead a collection of scientists and people with some science fluency from many disciplines. I for one do not reject them on this basis because predicting climate is such a complex problem requiring so many different disciplines to unravel that to restrict the discussion to climatologists is absurd.
A computer scientist, a mathematician, a chemist, a physicist, a biologist, a statistician or an astronomer can all refute or support the data or the methodology used to arrive at the data as well as a climatologist and certainly not be dismissed as lacking the specific expertise to do so.
Garbage in-garbage out, applies here in a quintessential way as I'm sure you would agree being, of all things, an economist....
A climate model is so complex and the methodology so interdisciplinary in nature that it requires a tremendous amount of extrapolated assumption just to feed the data to a monstrous super computer to run the program to make predictions that have even a short term time horizon let alone decades or centuries. (Let's also not forget that what we are talking about here is predictions not projections based on a variety of models, a distinction which seems to have been lost on the warmers.)
For example all relevant temperature data before about 1970 relies on tree rings, minor fossil and geologic evidence as determined by some subset of assumptions and observations and most importantly ice cores and the measurement of isotopic oxygen levels in any given year to determine the level of preferential evaporation rates of isotopically heavy water in warmer years versus cooler years.
To suggest that there has been enough statistically relevant data collected from a wide enough region of the earth, let alone that it has been sufficiently analyzed and cataloged to form a coherent, reliable data stream for global temperature variation so as to derive a mean or basis for comparison is absurd. The absurdity is even more confounding when one realizes that we are talking about multiple decade (at minimum) predictions that require an accuracy of fractions of a degree, (the range of 'catastrophic' warming for a century is at most 1 to 5 degrees C).
Further still, there are assumptions about new forests growing at northern latitudes in a warming world that actually take up more CO2 even as forests die and create momentary CO2 plumes in southern latitudes and someone has to make arbitrary assumptions about those values before the computer ever starts to run the program. You have ocean currents, deep and surface, to take into account, salinity values in the ocean currents, plankton estimates, fresh water algal blooms, incidence of volcanism, the albedo of low clouds (reflective cooling) versus the infrared trapping properties of high clouds (warming produces more low clouds, cooling more high clouds, hmmmmm? equilibrium anyone?), insects attacking northern forests in a warming world more southern forests in a cooling world (this is actually a significant factor) and so many more variables requiring prior assumption and value assignment you can't fathom the scope of the problem.
And yes even further, all these models themselves are based on weather prediction models extrapolated and enlarged to encompass the globe over longer periods. So when someone wants to tell you it's about climate not weather they are wrong since the basis of the model is a weather model, (how good is your weatherman for the coming seven days?)
A moment on technology and satellite data.. There is a rather glaring discrepancy between the ground temperature network and satellite measurement (about one degree... funny that, it's the over under number for warming alarmism to date.) It seems that ground measure gives a value one degree higher than satellite measurement. This variation was treated as an artifact until recently when new better satellites began to produce the same variance with great accuracy. Upon studying the problem most now agree that it is due to the fact that the satellites measure the temperature above the oceans surface whereas the ground network actually measures the surface of the ocean itself (apples and oranges you say? which is more better???)
I was going to make a point about vested interest and the billions of research dollars being 'competed' for as a motive for collusion, cooperation, corruption, and yes even possibly conspiracy but Ross beat me to it quite nicely. As a member of the academic world of publish or perish you probably know something about the corrupting nature of this biased process already to say nothing of the disparate political motivations of the members of the IPCC.
'The sky is falling tomorrow or sooner' will get you more cash and notoriety than 'I have a theory on how solar periodicity effects the countervailing forces of La Nina and El Nino in a predictable fashion such that we might anticipate periods of warming and cooling, quiet and storm over longer periods and perhaps dismiss the view of large scale warming for extended periods'..... I think you will get my drift here.
3. I am perfectly willing to accept open debate and equal treatment with regard to the dollars spent trying to prove or disprove a theory that so potentially affects the economic and developmental well being of our country and planet. I am not willing to enter into any one sided agreement that allows for some to be exempted from draconian measures because of some politically arbitrary thoughts about the stages of development of nations, rates of exploitation, rights to resources and or schemes of wealth redistribution.
last note and a few questions for you..
Your 'modest proposal' regarding a dollar a gallon carbon tax is perfectly absurd.
Is not the purpose of such a tax to reduce the rate of carbon liberated into the atmosphere by modifying behavior you have concluded is destructive? If your plan works don't you have a problem of diminishing returns?
Why is enriching a parasitic entity (the government)a solution to the problem that you have concluded is facing our world?
To what end would you put these enormous amounts of extracted wealth that solves the problem as you envision it?
What evidence do you have that the government, empowered with even more of our wealth, would find a new energy panacea to the benefit of all concerned?
Who wastes more, cost conscious consumers in a free market or an out of control confiscatory bureaucracy with few constraints and the ability to excuse itself from its own regulations?
When was the last time the government invented or improved anything through innovation and efficiency?
No dear doctor, your prescription borders on insanity in any rational world and it is treating a very dubious disease that thus far has no real symptoms and no clear method for diagnosis.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
Following Obama's Economic Policies
