The Oxburgh report on the science done at the CRU has now been published and….. as in the first inquiry, they find no scientific misconduct, no impropriety and no tailoring of the results to a preconceived agenda, though they do suggest more statisticians should have been involved. They have also some choice words to describe the critics.
Carry on…
CFU wrote: “… unless we have a scientist led coup of the world governments …”
Oh, great going, CFU. You just went and revealed the Secret Master Plan behind the global warming hoax!
First we take Manhattan, then we take Berlin …
Completely fed up, Jeez, I came here to find arguments to refute Montford from people who are more knowlegable in this area. If I want to know why my car has broken down I go to an expert. I’m not expected to do my own research into automotive engineering. Its your sneering attitude thats depressing me.
Rod B wrote: “I do appreciate your admission that the fix to potential AGW will diminish greatly some standards of living …”
AGW is not “potential”. It is actual. It is occurring now. There is absolutely NO legitimate question about that. Period.
“Fixing” AGW need not diminish anyone’s standard of living — except of course for those who are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars per day in profits from the consumption of fossil fuels, when that wealth moves to other sectors of the industrial economy. Why, some of them might have to sell off a mansion or two.
Which is, of course, the reason for the fossil fuel corporations’ generation-long campaign of deceit, denial, obstruction and delay, which you have bought hook, line and sinker.
Jon,
Just curious. I’ve provided a fairly detailed list of criteria that shows that Montford’s book is basically anti-science rather than science–point out that it uses exactly the same tactics as publications of the Discovery Institute. And yet, rather than comment on what I’ve said, you choose to argue tone with CFU. It tends to make one wonder what exactly it is that you came here looking for.
flxible (#1192),
Check John Reisman’s web page. Fee&Dividend would have people taxed by higher prices on carbon-emitting goods and services. Everyone would get the same dividend back. Those who emit less than the average would therefore benefit. I don’t think it’s terribly hard to understand.
Businesses are supposed to pass on the cost increases or to find ways of doing business that don’t involve emissions. That’s the whole point and this is how businesses deal with other types of costs. If prices are not raised on carbon-emitting goods and services then what would compel people to use less of them?
I’m not saying high income earners should get back less. I’m saying they typically emit more which means that Fee&Dividend would be a net loss for most of them unless they also get more dividend back as in BC’s scheme.
BC’s scheme is somewhat analogous to wealth-based emissions quotas. The day the carbon tax becomes painful, people will not stand for that. When people have been asked to change their behaviour for the common good in the past, rationing has been used. The general principle of rationing is that everyone gets the same share.
With Fee&Dividend, those wishing to emit more than their share are free to do so but they are asked to pay for the priviledge. So the wealthy still have an advantage over those who can’t afford it. But BC’s scheme allows the wealthy to emit more and still benefit from the scheme! And the average household with average emissions pays for it…
BPL (1180), if you raise the price of one commodity, the macro economic response will usually raise, not lower, the price of other commodities. People likely (though not certainly… as with all things economic) will use/buy less of commodity #1 and have more money to buy other commodities, which will cause their price to increase.
#1187 Ike Solem
There are important differences:
– The tobacco tax went where? Into politicians hands, when it really should have gone directly to pay for the cost of tobacco in society.
– It was not a progressive tax either, it was raised and left. The inevitability of a progressive tax is a true motivator. If you just raised it and left it then it would not achieve its goal.
– Third, the money needs to be kept out of the politicians hands and given back to the people. As this all unfolds we will absolutely need the economic stimulus it provides. The economy must at the least be kept functional otherwise a cascade of effects occur that would like create a very unpleasant society.
The Fee & Dividend is not a share the wealth plan in the argued sense either, it places the fee on individuals as well as corporations based on usage of fossil fuels (fair distribution), while simultaneously putting increasing pressure on the need for consumption reduction and transition to renewable sustainable energy.
In this case the best argument is to pick the policy that has the best chance of success for human and earth economies.
—
A Climate Minute The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
—
Our best chance for a better future ‘Fee & Dividend’
Understand the delay and costs of Cap and Trade
http://www.climatelobby.com/fee-and-dividend/
Sign the Petition!
http://www.climatelobby.com
“BPL (1180), if you raise the price of one commodity, the macro economic response will usually raise, not lower, the price of other commodities.”
What happens when you externalise the costs of one commodity?
Taxes are raised to pay for it.
Roger:
Montford is a proven serial liar. I wouldn’t trust him to tell me the time of day. End of story.
Sorry, but one’s history and reputation *does* matter. If one wants to write a book that knowledgeable people will take seriously, one should take care not to post a steady stream of outright lies on one’s blog beforehand.
Is that so terribly difficult for you to understand?
Ray Ladbury
I came here for a reasoned refutation of Montford, and I admit I was goaded into a tone argument.
1) He doesn’t focus on a few papers… he focuses on what to me to be the relevant papers needed to explain his point.
2)He focuses on a few anomalies. Ray, if an account gets to audit his own books, or to audit his partners books, well it’s considered ‘bad form’.
3)He does not dispute that the globe is warming, merely that the data for such has been ‘overly analysed’ should I say. Manns reliance on an unusual PCA statistic should be explained fully.
4)Science is evidence based. If the evidence is even slightly doubted it should be tested again and again. Science is not a consensus activity. If it was then all those ‘scientifically proven tests on the benefits of beer shampoo or whatever face cream’ would be science. If a new medicine was only proved to be useful by its manufacturer we would all be shouting about it.
5)His book is open to peer review …just buy it and read it. Then show its errors. That’s why I’m here!
6)He makes very serious allegations. That’s why I’m here. I thought you guys, would have ‘reviewed’ his book and had a point by point refutation ready to pass to people like me who want said refutation to use to defend AGW.
7)He offers no constructive alternative explanation… He doesn’t have to. He is ‘reporting’ what Steve Mcintyre went through to get data.
I say again … have you read the book ?
~1197 (Rod)
To your characterization of my “partially satirical post”, fair enough, but I note that had it been written by any of the AGW consensus proponents here, it would likely have been received as a “duh” summary, with the exception that “[insert appropriate pejorative here]” would have been replaced with, well, you know. Part B) is lifted almost word for word from the RC intro to this thread.
FCH @ 27 April 2010 at 12:36 PM
I’m happy to be informed by your expertise in your area. It’s a good start.
Here’s the part I don’t think there are any experts in yet. And on this site, little recognition of what the question is. Maybe a thought experiment is one way of describing it:
(1) Shut off every use of fossil energy, full stop. Lose anything else unrenewable, while you’re at it.
(2) Contemplate rebuilding the world’s energy infrastructure under the new rules. You can keep your windmills and batteries, but don’t even think of hopping in that car, truck, train, boat, or plane, unless it’s 100% electric, or some other renewable choice. Need to cart windmill turbine blades 100s or 1000s of miles, or just get out to the site to do some maintenance? Gonna be a problem, huh? Nuclear fan? Fine, just make them safe and build them using ONLY renewables. (And that’s actually cheating, since nuclear fuel is finite too.) Need to mine some iron ore, or rare earths for your fancy electronics? Need to feed 7+ billion while you are thinking? They need to eat *today*. No fair depleting unrenewable fertilizer stocks. You’re stuck. You can’t do it. Until you feel the problem in your bones, you’re not done with Step 2.
(3) OK, Step 2 was a little severe, so relax the conditions a bit. You can use a bit of nonrenewables, for just a little while, but they won’t do anyone much good unless they lead to a solution to the dilemma of Step 2. If you use them unwisely (a pretty good description of the last century or 2), you reach Step 2 without much preparation. Basically, you are birthing kids you can’t support. And the whole time, your economy (the real one, not to mention the financial aspects) is being transformed under you feet by enormous feedbacks from constricting supplies. The change is big enough to make your dollar cost figures less and less relevant. It’s not what something goes for today, it’s how to make renewable infrastructure out of renewables. We are not doing that very much, and your cost figures do not address the question. (Conservation and efficiency partially address the question, by providing more time, but they do not touch the core, which, to repeat, is making renewables only from renewables.)
With oil, we are probably on the downslope. If not, it doesn’t seem to matter much, because we aren’t bothering to conserve until we feel the downslope. There’s coal, but readers of this site ought to know the problems with that. And it won’t stay cheap and abundant if we desperately ramp up its use.
Well Jon (@1190), I see we didn’t have to wait very long for a reply, but I have to note that you still didn’t elaborate on any of Montford’s ideas that you are skeptical of. But what ever they may be, why is it that you expect anyone here or elsewhere to address them in a nice neat package for you? Why wait for the RealClimate white knights to drop everything and ride to your rescue? Why not investigate them for yourself?
Note the “start here” button at the very top of the page here at RealClimate, and the buttons marked “RC wiki”, and “index”.
Or maybe try http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php for counter arguments to almost all of the common “sceptic” talking points. John has been working very hard to add full references to the literature for each rebuttal.
Several posters have argued about Fee&Dividend and inflation. Fee&Dividend would indeed cause inflation if the monetary authorities cooperated. Inflation is necessary for a smooth adjustment of the price structure. Otherwise there is a serious risk of depression (Google for “sticky prices” and “debt-deflation”). If the monetary authorities tried to prevent inflation in the face of a large carbon tax, the effects would likely be quite dire!
On the other hand, the inflationary aspect of Fee&Dividend is checked by the dividend. The dividend is an income on top of wages. Therefore workers would not need pay rises as much as if they were faced with a garden-variety inflation. This would tend to depress real wages and therefore to lower unemployment. Please refer to the debate about Milton Friedman’s negative income tax proposal.
John (#1207),
Fee&Dividend is not a “share the wealth” scheme but it is redistributive, just like progressive income taxes. And there will be many wealthy individuals, foundations, politicians and so on who will oppose it like they oppose the progressive income tax (they prefer a flat tax or even a poll tax).
The redistributive aspect is key to Fee&Dividend’s chance of sucess. Without it, it would be in most (potential) voters’ interest to abolish the carbon tax or at least to keep the rates so low that it wouldn’t have much of an impact.
OT good news: the Cape Wind offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound has been approved. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar says Cape Wind will be the “first of many projects up and down the Atlantic coast.”
Roger, Walter is a perennial concern troll here on realclimate.
Past performance can be used to determine likely future performance, absent a change of perception.
Jon says …
We wouldn’t expect you to do your own research into automotive engineering. However, if you came here asking for a serious discussion of a book claiming that automotive engineering is a fraud we wouldn’t take you seriously.
Which, in essence, is what you’re doing by coming here asking for a rebuttal of Montford’s book.
Completely Fed Up: “Or read the Stern Review who did that for you and found it “cost” about three years delay in getting the same level of commercial activity.”
Well, of course (as I’m sure you know) the Stern Review wasn’t exactly uncontroversially received within the economics profession.
Here are some comments by William Nordhaus:
First, the Review should be read primarily as a document that is political in nature and has advocacy as its purpose.
[…]
… we might evaluate the Review in terms of the ground rules of standard science and economics. The central methodology by which science, including economics, operates is peer review and reproducibility. By contrast, the Review was published without an appraisal of methods and assumptions by independent outside experts. Nor can its results be easily reproduced.
[…]
It is virtually impossible for those outside the modeling group to understand the detailed results of the Review. It would involve studying the economics and geophysics in several chapters, taking apart a complex analysis (the PAGE model), and examining the derivation and implications of each of the economic and scientific judgments. Understanding the analysis is made even more difficult because the detailed calculations behind the Review have not been made available.
(http://www.nber.org/papers/w12741.pdf)
dhogaza (#1209) “Montford is a proven serial liar. I wouldn’t trust him to tell me the time of day. End of story.
Sorry, but one’s history and reputation *does* matter. If one wants to write a book that knowledgeable people will take seriously, one should take care not to post a steady stream of outright lies on one’s blog beforehand.
Is that so terribly difficult for you to understand?”
My point was simply that my overly strong expression, for which I was taken to task on, was hardly extreme given the language already being bandied about with respect to his book.
AC – “And the average household with average emissions pays for it.”
Yes, that’s what the nay sayers moan about here, as if “average emissions” is an achievement. Of course it has some validity if the average household has no alternatives to buying high-taxed “stuff”. Which is more the reality. Should the successful business with less than average emissions pay for it instead?
I have checked Johns petition page, I’m one of the first signers, I’d love to see anything enacted in the US and across Canada to reduce our use. BCs tax is a tax on carbon based energy [only one in N America?], a fee on all coal/petro products. The added cost to the producers of goods and services [which happens to be the name of a ‘value added’ tax we also have], will obviously be reflected in an increased cost/price/GST for those businesses dependent on carbon energy [and unfortunately also on schools and hospitals]. Those businesses who emit less DO benefit, both by having lower costs, so [hopefully] lower prices. I see no provision in the BC arrangement for business generally to avoid paying the carbon tax, nor any provision for them to get back more than “their share” of the dividend – quite the opposite, low income earners are the ones getting a subsidy [base amount] to lessen the impact of increased cost regardless of how much they emit. How are the poor folks being encouraged to improve their efficiency? Obviously the wealthy and businesses will try to reduce carbon use to reduce costs/increase profit, but it can only be a “gain” for any business if they get back more than their share.
I think you’re confusing things, I don’t understand how the wealthy ignoring emission reduction is encouraged or rewarded, unless we ignore the tendency of any successful business to minimize costs, and the fact that higher priced goods and services don’t compete well in the marketplace. It’s not like those with “average” carbon footprints get back less – in fact, using a very small amount of non-electric energy myself, I’m making out fine – I’ll have to add it up, but I’m pretty confident I’m getting more back than is added on my costs. And I think that’s been part of the game plan here, put more cash back in the hands of the consumer that they’ll hopefully spend on non-emitting goods and services. BCs arrangement sounds about as close as possible to application of the plan in our consumer capitalist waste stream.
I guess then I’ll have to leave it at that. Just call the book rubbish and the problem is solved. You sound just like the deniers of AGW. Don’t listen…its rubbish…I don’t need an alternative viewpoint. I wont help fight the good fight, I’ll pick up me pitchfork…. Its like an episode of the Simpsons. ‘Excuse us missus, we are an angry mob just come to burn your house down’ I came for help, thank you for nothing
“Well, of course (as I’m sure you know) the Stern Review wasn’t exactly uncontroversially received within the economics profession.
Here are some comments by William Nordhaus:”
Well don’t you have something yourself?
“First, the Review should be read primarily as a document that is political in nature and has advocacy as its purpose.”
SOP for denialism. Any report is a political one if you don’t like it and can’t refute it professionally.
No, I think this is actually a report from an ECONOMIST on ECONOMIC SCENARIOS.
“… we might evaluate the Review in terms of the ground rules of standard science and economics.”
May I refer you to the previous quote. I don’t think you’re going to even try to do that, are you.
“The central methodology by which science, including economics, operates is peer review and reproducibility.”
So why don’t you or Willie TRY to do so?
Because you’re unable?
“By contrast, the Review was published without an appraisal of methods and assumptions by independent outside experts.”
Well, apart from the ECONOMICS professional and the team that produced the report. Which I guess neither you nor Willie have read. So much easier to say “it’s wrong, m’kay?”.
“It is virtually impossible for those outside the modeling group to understand the detailed results of the Review.”
Yeah, ‘cos you’d have to, like READ it and UNDERSTAND it.
Woah.
“It would involve studying the economics and geophysics in several chapters”
Hmm, if it’s so long and complex, how come you can’t see the methods used to analyse the conclusions?
” taking apart a complex analysis (the PAGE model), and examining the derivation and implications of each of the economic and scientific judgments.”
Well, its more than Willie or you have done.
“Understanding the analysis is made even more difficult because the detailed calculations behind the Review have not been made available.”
No, it’s made more difficult because it doesn’t give you an answer you want.
So sad. So bad.
Boo hoo.
Jim Eager
Thanks for the link Jim, I’ll troll the archives at skeptical science and avoid the trlls here !
“BPL: Fallacy of composition. If you raise the price of ONE commodity, it does not raise the price of OTHER commodities (unless they’re “complimentary goods”). The price of everything else goes down since demand is reduced by curtailing the available money for it. And if you rebate the tax money back to the public, even that doesn’t hurt.”
Unless the thing taxed is carbon emissions. Then everything goes up in price.
Odd that tobacco settlement money should be mentioned. Billions poured into the states based on the claim that tobacco was costing them the same in subsidized healthcare. Okay, makes sense – here’s the money.
It was dumped into the general fund and pissed away, while none (or tiny amounts) went into state medicare and medicade, or for funding indigent care, or for anything to do with healthcare.
Civil War inflation is also an interesting topic, as it is the reason the Secret Service was founded. Forty percent of all the cash floating around the country (North and South) was forged at the end of the war. It was in reality fiat money.
Fee and Dividend gets even worse and worse the more I read into it. It’s just another wealth redistribution scheme to take from those evil rich people and give to the poor, downtrodden people that hadn’t won “life’s lottery.”
Work hard, be innovative, and make a boatload of cash for it and one will be demonized. Drop out of school, make poor personal decisions that make one viable for only the lowest skilled jobs and one is a hero worthy of being handed a reward from the government.
It makes no sense to me, and only encourages being non-productive.
Any word on when the Wegman Inquiry will commence? Or is producing “original research” by copying and pasting from Wikipedia something we’re supposed to happily pay for as taxpayers? Where are CEI and their “Senior FOIA Typewriter Monkey” Chris Horner when we really need them?
1197 (Rod B)
No, they’ve raised questions over every single part of the science, often in multiple and contradictory ways, without making a dent in it for anyone that looks at it with a critical eye. They haven’t raised a single credible point, except in the eyes of the un-skeptical who don’t want to believe in climate change, so they latch unquestioningly onto any hair brained comment they find.
I love it when deniers use that “it’s a religion” line, knowing that creationists are reviled as unscientific, so if you can label the “believers” in science as “religious,” it discredits everything they argue as based on “faith” instead of fact.
Sorry, go sell it to someone else. The deniers are the ones in the mystics and priesthood business.
Um, what planet are you from? What language do you read? Where in my comment did I say the fix would greatly diminish standards of living (when in fact I said the exact opposite, that the denier “alarmists” are selling that particular fiction) and where in my comment did I say or imply that I would be happy to see this happen?
This latter is particularly offensive. You are the one that doesn’t want to give up a single minute and inconsequential luxury you have, but at the expense of other people’s suffering, and you accuse me of reveling in others’ misfortune?
This is typical, ridiculous, denier cr@p. You just make stuff up, and turn everything into a hissy fit without substance.
Let me be clear:
(a) Mitigation now (not later) will barely affect your lifestyle. You’ll lose a few extraneous luxuries that you really won’t even notice (like upgrading to that 60″ 3D plasma TV you have your eye on). 1% to 3% of the GDP is all it will take, and there will be rapid return on that investment in terms of less revenue paid to oil companies and the foreign countries that hold the world’s oil.
(b) Mitigation is necessary anyway because oil is running out. If we wait until the pressure is too great, the pain and suffering then (for you) will be immense.
(c) You and everyone will be better off (financially, strategically and ecologically) in the long run with renewables and a new, more efficient energy infrastructure.
(d) Change creates jobs, which will be very good for the economy (but bad for the rich few that hold the current energy reins).
(e) We’ve survived many, many other changes in infrastructure. Once upon a time we had the Pony Express, then the rail lines, then the telegraph, then the telephone and radio, then e-mail and cellphones. Each required a different infrastructure which took effort to put in place, but was worth it. Once upon a time we had horse drawn wagons, then sailing ships, then steam ships and rail lines, then trucks and planes. Each required a different infrastructure which took effort to put in place, but was worth it.
flxible (#1220),
Glad to read that you signed the petition. It seems I’m farther down the signatories list. But, with due respect, it looks like you haven’t grasped the Fee&Dividend dynamic. You ask how are average consumers or poor folks encouraged to lower their emissions. Here’s how it works:
First, there would be economical opportunities to emit less right away. No technological advances or new climate-friendly products are required, though they would help of course. With a higher gas price, it would for instance make more economic sense to replace an old car with a more fuel-efficient one or simply to get the tires checked and so on. But more complex choices are affected as well, especially as the notion that the carbon price is going to keep increasing year after year sinks in. Making the more economical choice nets people more money at the end of the day regardless of how much they win or lose at the overall Fee&Dividend game.
Second, while poor folks in particular would initially benefit from a windfall and the average consumer wouldn’t be punished for his lack of eco-enthusiasm, this is only temporary. Fee&Dividend is a kind of virtuous trap. It sets up a sort of competition for lower emissions. Poor folks who do nothing to reduce their emissions will see their purchasing power drop year after year as they are sweeped closer and closer to the average emissions by the cuts other people are making. Remember: it’s the average consumption that pays for your carbon dividend. The dividend doesn’t go up and up along with the price of the fuels you burn because it’s also a function of how much the others burn. If you don’t cut as much as other people do, you tend to lose out.
The beauty of it is that, once the Fee&Dividend game is up and running, there would be a large constituency who have invested in their position at the top of the “carbon pole” and who have come to depend on their carbon cheque. This crowd would defend the carbon tax out of pride and self-interest and not only out of “climate patriotism”. As a politician, you would not want to cross such a constituency!
In sum, most people could figure how they would initially benefit from Fee&Dividend (which is necessary to get it up an running) but, as it is ramped up, everyone is pushed into cutting their emissions whether their purchasing power initially rose or dropped. And, as an evolving constituency of “carbon winners” is suckered in the game, a political pressure will build for ever steeper carbon taxes because, if the rates aren’t increased, the dividend cheques will be cut as people take steps to cut their emissions. Without this pressure, I’m afraid the coutervailing pressure to halt the rate increases would become overwhelming because some people will get hurt by the tax increases. A high carbon tax will have staunch opponents and will need staunch supporters.
As to businesses, understand that the businesses which have low emissions would benefit from Fee&Dividend as well. No corporate tax breaks are required. All businesses would benefit from lower real wages and the businesses who emit less than their competitors would of course be rewarded with a competitive edge.
The businesses who provide carbon-heavy services or goods will lose customers but that’s necessary one way or another of emissions are to be reduced. Propping up these businesses with tax breaks defeats the purpose of a carbon tax.
Again, it’s not true that people or businesses will only be motivated to cut emissions if they gain from the scheme: any cut would be good because it saves money. Better to lose small than to lose big. Who gains and who loses only matters for the politics of it, not for the effectiveness of the tax.
The 100% dividend on a per capita basis is really vote-buying. If it was much less than 100% there would be too many people badly hurt and who would need to beg for some kind of humiliating welfare scheme in order to survive the carbon tax hikes. But there’s no shame in cashing in the same cheque everyone gets automatically.
So the issue with the wealthy in BC’s scheme is not that they wouldn’t be motivated to cut their emissions (though they would be less motivated to give up luxuries than others of course but Fee&Dividend would not make much difference in that respect).
The issue is that, in BC’s scheme, the largest net income flows tends to go to the wealthy becuase they tend to benefit disproportionately from the tax breaks. That’s because, in most places, there’s a fairly small amount of people who, as a group, own most corporations and sizable businesses. There also tends to be a somewhat larger (but still small) group who pays large income taxes.
So you have a large share of the carbon tax funding the dividend of a small group of people. Few if any of the truely wealthy households will burn anywhere near as much fossil fuels as their wealth would allow them to so their net benefit from the scheme is huge as compared to what poor folks get. I guess you could say the BC scheme rewards them for refraining to sell their assets to buy whole tankers of oil in order to set them on fire or something but that’s a waste of tax revenues if there ever was one. Better buy votes with it and allow low- and middle-income people to have a (halfway) decent livelihood while you’re at it.
Jon,
There are any number of tedious ‘skeptical’ tomes to be debunked every day; the RealClimate mods are working scientists who don’t find time to post articles very often as it stands. If you’d acquainted yourself with RC before posting, you’d have seen that. That’s why they asked you to cite specific charges from the book that concerned you; that’s an easier task than ‘point for point’ rebuttal of an entire book. Butif all you are interested in is the much-tilled ground of Mann 1998 , there are certainly science bloggers out there who have covered it (as well as the usual ‘skeptic’ sites for which it is a perennial whipping boy). Did you look?
SecularAnimist,
Would this be good enough for you re: ‘point for point’ rebuttal to Dean Radin’s psi nonsense?
http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/entangledreview.html
#1214 Anonymous Coward
Thank you for the clarification. I was trying to say that it is not ‘share the wealth’ by addressing those that would say it was ‘share the wealth’. I am assuming that will be one of the attack postures when it begins to attract serious attention in the political realm.
I believe its redistributive property will provide needed economic stimulus just as things are beginning to get dicey. I hope we can get it in place sooner, rather than later as delay only increases the exponent on cost while diminishing adaptive capacity due to economic stressors.
—
A Climate Minute The Greenhouse Effect – History of Climate Science – Arctic Ice Melt
—
Our best chance for a better future ‘Fee & Dividend’
Understand the delay and costs of Cap and Trade
http://www.climatelobby.com/fee-and-dividend/
Sign the Petition!
http://www.climatelobby.com
Re 1206 Rod B says:
“if you raise the price of one commodity, the macro economic response will usually raise, not lower, the price of other commodities. People likely (though not certainly… as with all things economic) will use/buy less of commodity #1 and have more money to buy other commodities, which will cause their price to increase.”
Not knowing the context of what this was in response to, but I want to point out:
If the prices of other goods/services rise because demand has shifted their way, then investment will be attracted to those goods/services (because of the profitability) and will be repulsed from the good/service that is taxed (because the lower consumption reduces the profitability by). Thus, the investment changes the supplies, tending to raise the price of the taxed item (which was raised by the tax but then lowered by the demand change) and reduce the prices of the other items (which were raised by the shift in demand).
“The beauty of it is that, once the Fee&Dividend game is up and running, there would be a large constituency who have invested in their position at the top of the “carbon pole” and who have come to depend on their carbon cheque. ”
Ah, building another entrenched welfare class voting block. Wonderful. Just what we need, more people with handouts demanding yet more handouts.
Steven Sullivan wrote: “Would this be good enough for you re: ‘point for point’ rebuttal to Dean Radin’s psi nonsense?”
I have been advised in the past by the moderators of this site that substantive discussion of parapsychology is off-topic.
I do occasionally mention parapsychology here because I think there are some interesting parallels between the organized “skeptic” groups who attack the legitimacy of climate research because they have an a priori ideological opposition to its conclusions, and the organized “skeptic” groups who attack the legitimacy of parapsychology because they have a different sort of a priori ideological opposition to its conclusions.
And I think those parallels are revealing even if — especially if — you think that the evidentiary status of psi research and of climate change research are entirely different on the merits.
It seems to me that just like many AGW “deniers” who come to this site to proclaim that climate science is fraudulent do so based on little or no actual knowledge of the field, but are rather simply repeating what they have been told by organized “climate skeptic” groups, unfortunately scientifically-minded folks who reject parapsychology out of hand often do so on the basis of little actual knowledge of the field, with most of their “knowledge” about it coming from the organized “paranormal skeptic” groups.
My point in bringing that up is not to persuade anyone here to “believe” in the reality of psi phenomena, but rather to persuade them to ask themselves where their beliefs about psi come from. It may be easier than many of us like to think for us to unskeptically accept views that are handed to us as long as they fit our a priori beliefs.
So my comments about parapsychology are not really about parapsychology, but about the regular old non-para psychology of organized skepticism.
Having said that, I found that rebuttal to be rather weak on the “point by point”, and very heavy on snark, insults, ridicule and name-calling, which is unfortunately all too typical of the organized “skeptic” groups. And certain specific statements in that review about what Radin had to say in his books are incorrect (i.e. not an accurate account of what Radin wrote).
At least the writer actually read Dean Radin’s books. Many people seem to feel that they don’t need to read anything about parapsychology to dismiss it, because they “already know” that there is nothing to it.
Have you, yourself, in fact read either of Radin’s books, in order to form your own judgment? Or are you happy to accept that writer’s rebuttal because it fits with your a priori beliefs?
Completeley fed up (#222):
Jon:
You seem to have missed Gavin’s in-line response to your initial request at 1171. Here it is in full (note the final question):
Frank Giger (#1224),
I hope you realise that Fee&Dividend is no more redistributive than Milton Friedman’s negative income tax. Yeah, the world-famous economist who supposedly inspired Thatcher’s as well as Pinochet’s economic policies. He figured giving cheques to low-income folks was all in all a sound economic policy. But perhaps you know better. Or perhaps Friedman is too far to the left for your taste. Is there anyone who isn’t?
Rod B @ 1197:
That’s not =my= admission or even my point of view / belief / religious conviction.
I was out visiting a client who is =very= much against any kind of “Cap and Trade”. They are very self-sufficient electrically, and could be “gasoline self-sufficient” without a lot more effort (for me, it would take about $8,000 tops, maybe $10,000 if I wanted “no more gasoline” and “lavish lifestyle”).
So I told them — “Why are you worried? It doesn’t affect you.”
I was visiting a different client today. Her electric bill was $35 last month. And for that free clue, about $23 of that is fees. She and I both live in homes with all sorts of modern gadgets — I have three wide-screen, hi-def TeeVees, DVR, several computers on 24/7, home theatre. I do all that using 1/4th or so the average Austinite’s electricity, and 1/60th of what Algore uses.
Yesterday I got a call from a person who is both a client and a vendor. I’m getting ready to co-locate a server at his data center. He had run through the numbers on the server I’m CoLo’ing and realized I was being overcharged on electricity because I’m sending him a server that uses 1/4th the power of a typical server it’s size. I explained that I was going to pay the higher amount and use it for marketing purposes.
The future of “green” isn’t just cheaper, it’s also more abundant and more convenient. I’ve got friends and neighbors whose peak summer electric bills are upwards of 2,200KWh. My peak bill was 620KWh. For March, my net consumption was 5KWh. With a house full of electronics (multiple servers, printers, LANs, WANs, WAPs), running a business from my house, electric motorcycle, electric lawnmower, electric edgers, the entire mess.
Which part of my lifestyle is going to be going down again? Because frankly, I think I’m going to add another 1 or 2KW DC to the array on account of I need to build a solar “lab” in the backyard, and if I do that I’ll need to find uses for the excess power or else just give it away.
CFU @ 1199:
I’d encourage you to learn how the “Smart Grid” actually works.
Clue: Not the way you seem to think.
More clue: I’d explain it, but most of it is still confidential with my former employer as the patent applications all work through the process. The first of several dozen published recently. In a few months the interesting ones start to publish, then we can talk about smart grids and I won’t have to track you down and kill you :)
SecularAnimist (1203), except Bob (Sphaerica) said everyone will lose their SUVs, plasma TVs and vacations to Mexico…
Re myself Re 1206 Rod B
… of course, not all of the investment that pulls away from the taxed economic pathway and goes toward alternatives that fulfill similar uses, and vice versa, is limited to the two sets of pathways, and the same is true of demand – demand might tend to pull away from other pathways not so directly involved, and investment then might be pulled into the alternatives from other pathways that were not the originally taxed pathways. For example, an increased demand for biofuels could increase the price of food – on the other hand, competition with ‘smart’ biofuels could reduce or perhaps (?) reverse that effect, and perhaps there is potential for symbiosis between solar power and agriculture on semi-arid lands. Any product (such as CdTe and CIGS solar cells) that uses Te or In and Ga may increase in price (but not necessarily by much (?); a very expensive element used in trace amounts may be quite affordable)as a result of greater demand for those resources; on the other hand, increased demand for some elements could make other mining byproducts (including increased geologic knowledge of certain types of ores?) less expensive, and … could increased demand for S reduce the pollution from mining of sulfide ores??? … Anyway, none of this (setting aside market imperfections and existing problems in government policy) is inherently ‘bad’, from a market perspective, that’s what’s supposed to happen; of course, if some group shares a disproportionate amount of the burden of transition, they might be offered some compensation (wind farm jobs for former coal miners?) – but to the extent that some group suffers from the transition, this is like the more general problems people have in the economics in a changing (or not) world in general and could be addressed as such, and the people who would defend the free market from government actions in general should not use concern for the poor as a reason to not correct an externality, in my opinion.
———-
Re 1212 Ric Merritt – “(3) OK, Step 2 was a little severe,” Yes. Really I don’t think there are many who would advocate that.
The idea of using a CO2 tax (or something to that effect), or technically, a net CO2eq tax
– more generally, a tax proportional to some measure of GWP (time-integrated radiative forcing per unit emission) plus, for CO2 and fossil CH4 (which ultimately adds CO2), some amount for ocean acidification and maybe an adjustment for CO2 fertilization, plus some additional regulation of coal mining, mercury emissions, etc… –
is that the market tends to respond to optimize wealth given appropriate price signals; price signals publically applied that reflect the public cost (measured in full, or at least approximately so) will improve the wellbeing in the long-term by giving the market the information it needs to do it’s computations.
(Imperfections in real market behavior could certainly justify additional policy measures and public investments (building codes, R&D, etc.). Some of the revenue might be used directly to pay for the public costs that the tax rate is based on,(aquaducts? compensation to climate-change refugees and there host countries – there is actually justification for not simply returning all revenue to the people as dividend or tax cut, although it might be done so as an economic investment that can be payed back with taxes later to pay for the costs of climate change), and also in the short term for costs people face as a result of the policy itself (job training subsidy offered to former coal miners, investment in wind power projects in coal-mining towns). See above…)
In so far as energy is concerned, the result will be some overall gradual transition that is faster than it would be based on scarcity of fossil fuels alone, but as fast is justified by the combination of scarcity and environmental problems (and maybe military/political problems as well, if those are figured in the tax assessement) associated with fossil fuel use.
The winners would be those clean energy sectors with lifecycle costs that are affordable and depend less on the fossil fuels or other emission sources themselves. The tax would add some cost to renewable energy technology that requires fossil energy input. But other things being equal, a process that gets 1000 MJ of energy from 30 MJ of coal would be favored over one which gets only 10 MJ of energy from 30 MJ of coal.
You had raised the issue of energy return on investment and CO2eq per kWh issues.
1.
Well, it is true that, with the present mix of energy sources, production of clean energy infrastructure will tend to initially depend on some fossil fuels. But that may be a relatively environmentally friendly and profitable use of fossil fuels. As the entire energy supply shifts, more and more clean energy will displace the fossil fuels used to produce and maintain the clean energy supply itself.
But even before this happens, from what I’ve read, the lifecycle CO2eq/kWh for a number of clean energy resources (wind, solar, nuclear, hydroelectric, sometimes geothermal) is considerably less to much much less than that for coal or oil and maybe natural gas. Interestingly, this may be true for at least some other types of pollution; for example, a study of a few types of solar cells found that (as I recall) they all had less Cd emissions per kWh than coal, with the least (in this study) emissions (at least for normal operations, of those types considered in this study) coming from CdTe solar cells, because their lifecycle used the least amount of coal energy.
Of course, for solar PV and wind (and nuclear and hydroelectric), the clean energy replaces fossil fuel usage for electricity more readily than for heating or transportation or some industrial applications. However, transportation could be at least partially electrified (perhaps at great profit) and there is room for some electrification and use of solar power and increases in efficiency in heating. But if some fossil fuel uses are harder to replace, this shouldn’t stand in the way of replacing fossil fuels for other uses – we get the lower hanging fruit and go from there. Getting the same or more energy from less fossil fuel should make it easier to tackle the rest with sequestration, if that can be worked out.
2.
Of course, whereever the input energy comes from, it must (not including the energy resource itself – the energy in solar radiation, wind, etc.) generally be less than the energy output for the lifecycle of energy resources (depending to some extent on form of energy; obviously batteries have their place as a stored, portable supply of electricity even though they are, purely in terms of energy, less efficient than just using the original supply; but obviously for the energy sector as a whole, it must produce more than it consumes of the forms of energy it produces).
From what I’ve read, the energy used in a lifecyle of a PV solar power (including associated infrastructure) is on the order of a couple of years of the power output (and can decrease from there), used to produce decades of the same power. In general things look good for wind and solar at least. It shouldn’t be forgotten that the fossil fuel sector uses some energy as well (for the comparison, this energy input would be that energy in addition to the energy of the fuels that the energy output comes from for any given engine, heater, or power plant – ie it would be the energy used to process the fuel and build and maintain (and recycle, etc.) the equipment, etc., just as the energy considered for solar power is not the solar radiation but the energy used to produce and maintain (and recycle, etc.) the infrastructure – although for some purposes, such as land use comparisons and efficiency comparisons among solar technologies, the solar radiation input might be considered as part of the energy investment, but it should generally be kept seperate).)
One can also consider relative land use, water use, material use, worker safety, etc. Wind is very efficient in water use; solar uses some water in general but not too much. Regarding scarce materials, there are generally alternatives (for CdTe and CIGS, there is plenty of room for growth yet, but they may ultimately ceed market share to such new and promising options as copper-zinc-tin-sulfide and zinc phosphide, or back to Si, which may continue to improve economically; wind power should be feasable with various material combinations…)
Ideally I would provide some citations or sources but I just went by memory here, so I’ll have to get back to that later …
Bob (Sphaerica) (1226): you say, “No, [skeptics]’ve raised questions over every single part of the science.” Some have, some have not. Though that screws up pigeon-holing. And, “They haven’t raised a single credible point,” as you say only because that’s your definition, which was my primary thought in the first place.
I never said ‘it’s a religion’. I said you (sometimes) act religious. You could take some of your words and actions and put them into many religion settings and be hard-pressed to tell the difference.
You maintain the same meme. You are not going to lower anyone’s standard of living…..(whisper) except of course for those guys who have a standard that you think is inappropriate. Like the egotistical desire for a 42 inch plasma TV… In refuting my point you oddly, but, tellingly, commit the same error when you say, “You are the one that doesn’t want to give up an… inconsequential luxury you have… at the expense of other people’s suffering…” It’s obvious that you are deciding what is an inconsequential luxury for me, or what you later call “extraneous luxuries.”
None of those infrastructure changes you mention were done by fiat; none with the intention of creaming a certain group, as in we didn’t decree the automobile, in part, to beat up the nasty buggy makers.
AC: The USA is neither the UK or Chile. I know that once a system where rich people pay the government and poor people get their money, two things will happen:
1) It will be considered an “entitlement” and ever increasing amounts of money will be given away as a campaign promise kept.
2) The definition of “poor” will be expanded for the same reason until the inflow of cash won’t meet the outflow, and the USA will increase the deficit in order to meet the difference.
Call it a lack of faith in either party to keep it “revenue neutral.”
Oh, and I missed the “OT” about the offshore windfarm in New England. Thumbs high.
If I were a senator, I propose Energy Bonds, much like the War Bonds of WWII. The money would go to making energy cooperatives, regionally owned and operated (like rural cooperative internet providers, electrical, and telephone companies). Once the coop starts making a profit (as all “non-profit” coops do), they repay the bond amount and sever ties with the government (other than standard regulatory stuff).
While they’d be as sexy as a Savings Bond as an investment instrument, they’d actually be attractive, particularly if one could deduct them from income tax (including capital gains) and got a reduced electrical bill (outlining how much of the ‘lectric came from the coop).
Do I think we’ll ever completely shut down coal plants? Nope. But I would like to see them greatly reduced and used as a safety backup. I think we can all agree that while having a coal plant run six or eight hours a day isn’t as good as zero hours a day, it is certainly better than 24.
What we see in energy mixes now is quotas given to wind and solar for grid demand and wind and solar falling down on the job, forcing the coal plants to pick up the slack. Lots of this will be reduced with wind and solar being dispersed so that when one place isn’t producing another is. That means overbuilding by, say, thirty percent of average generation capacity. If 100 wind and solar farms are projected to meet demand on the average, we’d better build 130 (if not more).
Our family looked into having some non-productive land turned into a wind farm; while ultimately profitable, the upfront money and maintenance costs are also pretty daunting. The wind may be free, but like coal in the ground, it is pretty darned expensive to mine.
Steven Sullivan I was passed Montfords book by a colleague and I have not ventured far into the discussion of climate sciences so I didn’t expect anything like the sort of ‘sensitivity’ I found here. Indeed this site was recommended to me as THE place to go to to find a rebuffal of Montfords piece. It was like the scene in an old western where a stranger comes into town, goes into a bar and the piano player stops playing. All eyes go on the stranger who then says ‘I was told I could find directions to whatever here’. The crowd then proceed to ask why he wanted to go there, who said he should go there, buy a map, or just plain old insult him.
Not what I expected from a group of experts in the field (working scientists, skeptics by trade). People here must work on their ‘sensitivity issues’ if honest joe’s , in all innocence ask for directions from the locals they should simply give them in a polite manner.
I am reassured that not all people here are like that though. SecularAnimist has my point to a tee. I was after a critique of the book, EXACTLY like the one he gave to the review of Radins book on psi.
No more, no less. If the general public are treated this way by the ‘working scientists’ they will be driven to the dark side…..ignorance.
Thank You SecularAnimist
Ray (#183), thanks for your comments and questions to us on Montford. I agree with Jon’s (#210) response, but here are my own:
“Roger and Jon,
Montford’s book represents a very deep misunderstanding of the scientific process. In fact, he takes a page right from the creationists on how to do anti-science.
1)He focuses only on a few papers, ignoring the bulk of work confirming the basic results of those papers.”
He focuses on the (very influential) papers which the book is about. It is difficult to see how he could have done otherwise.
”2)He focuses on a few anomalies that he contends distort the peer review process.”
The book is mainly about problems with, and then the attempts to understand and replicate, the original Hockey Stick papers, and difficulties with just getting a clear statement of the methods used in the original papers, and of finding out exactly what data were used. Part of this story involves the review process, which didn’t work brilliantly it is argued. But he is not arguing that any flaws in the process somehow mean that peer review is generally problematic.
“3)He utterly ignores the overwhelming body of evidence that demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that a)the globe is warming, and b)that we are doing it.”
The book is not specifically about this.
”4)He not only ignores the scientific consensus (the next line of defense beyond peer review and independent replication/verification), he questions the very validity of scientific consensus.”
Again, this isn’t really relevant to the main argument of the book. He is not directly questioning the scientific consensus on AGW (although he is evidently skeptical).
”5)He does not offer his own work up for peer review, but instead presents it to an uninformed and nonexpert public”
This kind of wide ranging analysis is not the sort of thing that is amenable to publication in a peer reviewed journal. It’s difficult to see what, other than a book of this sort, could have been produced.
“6)He makes very serious allegations that to be true would require a massive fraud not just by climate scientists, but by all of the independent scientists who have reviewed and concurred with the findings of climate science.”
I completely disagree. The book is about often very subtle things in the scientific process which ultimately can lead in the absence of a rigorous review process– it is argued – to bad science. Things like exactly how data is selected, details of the statistical approach, etc. It doesn’t suggest a huge fraud by a large group of scientists.
“7)He offers no constructive alternative explanation yielding verifiable predictions.”
Again, this isn’t relevant to the main arguments of the book, which is to argue that there are flaws in how this particular body of work was done, published and used (Did you really read the book Ray?).
“Now, I ask you: Shouldn’t it bother you that his methods are utterly indistinguishable from those of creationists, antivaxxers, moon hoaxers and all other anti-science nutjobs? After all, scientific methodology is even more important than the knowledge science yields, because it represents a reliable way of developing knowledge.”
On the contrary, the book claims that the scientific process can work very badly. Surely, it should be possible to attempt to replicate published work, especially such influential work as this? This requires that the methods used and the data used should be either precisely described, or better still, be provided in online appendices (as happens in many academic fields).
Like Jon, I am not a ‘denier’, but found the book highly disturbing. Having said that, it is clearly a story told from a particular angle, and it would be nice to hear at some point the other side of this story. But it is well documented so I suspect that its guts are true (I did chase some references up to check that it was being accurate). As I said before, I do have a number of problems with the book. In addition I would expect that the criticized proxies will have defenders and it would be good to hear what the arguments are; in terms of the wider implications for the historical record (not the main focus of the book admitedly), is it true, as claimed, that other climate reconstructions rely on the same “flawed” proxies? (Yes, I know Skepticalscience has some good relevant material.)
“The quotes from Nordhaus – by the way he has a much more established reputation than Stern in the area of climate change economics within the economics profession”
However, Willie couldn’t understand or didn’t take the effort to work on the Stern Report.
Frank Dyson is established. Fred Singer is well established.
Appeal to authority fallacy much?
So please tell us all why Stern got it wrong, and why Willie thinks the report is a political document (whilst his isn’t)?
Jon,
This site requires you to think for yourself, and to listen to what is being said. I’ve been reading here for many months silently, learning about the community and how it works (not to mention the science stuff, too). The primary reason you encountered resistance is that you chose to ignore (overlook?) the very direct question asked of you. If what you seek is a general understanding on how the people that post here view the book, I believe that has been made apparent. If you have a specific concern that you were hoping to have addressed, the thread is not yet closed.
Since you didn’t mention the post I made pointing out that your arrival and request had been acknowledged by the site’s hosts, I am including a link to your original statement:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/second-cru-inquiry-reports/comment-page-24/#comment-172568
One of the unique characteristics of RealClimate is how the most prominent link points not to the top-level home page (as on most sites), but to a wealth of knowledge that has been nicely categorized. This allows those like us to catch up on what has happened in the past without requiring everyone to stop for a complete review every few days.
A better analogy than the saloon would be an open house, where everyone is welcome, but it is still appropriate to pay respect to one’s host. I have no problem wearing shoes in my house, but I am aware that such is not the case for all cultures. It is incumbent on me to pay attention to my surroundings.
“1221
Jon says:
28 April 2010 at 2:53 PM
I guess then I’ll have to leave it at that. Just call the book rubbish and the problem is solved.”
Hey, it works for Roger and Willie Nordhaus.
Works for you too: you haven’t read the IPCC either, have you. Probably because it’s “written by politicians” like you’ve been told.
[concern trolling removed]
Finally to clarify,
My view is that millennial to centennial scale variability is not being captured effectively by tree-rings and therefore lower resolution studies are seeming to be a more accurate portrayal of the last 2000 years (Moburg et al. 2006, Viau et al. 2006). However, that being said I believe that a critical threshold was crossed between 1950-1980 whereby warming has overtaken the warming during the medieval warming period driven by greenhouse gases, although the earliest parts of the 20th century were being driven by natural variability, perhaps an event similar to the 1450 event? (Mann et al. 2009). Any thoughts?
“I find commentary coming from the moderators and other members of the scientific community is getting a little bit rude at times making it easy for those in the public to agree with the writers who demonize climate scientists.”
Odd.
That demonisation is decades old.
And the calls for gutting scientists is made OK because people aren’t playing patsy with your false concern any more???
“My view is that millennial to centennial scale variability is not being captured effectively by tree-rings ”
What leads you to this view, Robbert?