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…
Thanks for your understanding Robert and Roger. This was my first visit to this site, and as I said I was expecting a more welcoming attitude, not the sneering and condescention which I recieved. To be honest I would have expected that attitude from the skeptical side. However, I now have my links to study and will not be recommending any ‘climate virgins’ to come here to RC unless they have a pretty hard skin.
Just one last shot. this book will bite you lot in the ass….READ IT for goodness sake. If the public and main stream media read it you are iin for a rougher time than you’ve had so far
I’m sorry for disturbing the cosy consensus in this student common room and I will not be returning.
Roger @1243, I’m afraid you can’t have it both ways. Either Montford’s screed is a limited historical study of a small subfield of climate science with little or no relevance to the overall conclusions of the field as a whole, or, as Montford has clearly insinuated, it reflects onto the field in general. Pick a or b.
Even as a historical study, the book doesn’t hold up. First, Montford has no history of scholarship in either history of science or in climate science (He’s a damned accountant, ferchrissake!). He exhibits a serious misunderstanding of scientific methodology–to wit, science does not rely on any single study or even single methodology for its conclusions. The paleoclimate studies, for instance, are supported by a plethora of other data–including bore hole measurements and even historical records (e.g. blooming of cherry blossoms in Kyoto). What is more, I note that climate scientists had no trouble replicating the results of Mann et al. 1998, and that none of the studies disagrees substantively.
Montford has a long record of publications–and none of it paints him as a friend of either science or the truth.
Frank Giger (#1241),
I don’t think you have a reality-based view of the history of redistributive public policies and of the differences between the USA and other countries. But that’s way off topic.
What you need to understand is that Fee&Dividend has no definition of “poor” and that the dividends aren’t paid out of the government’s budget. Carbon taxes are simply paid back in full to the people and everyone gets the same cheque. And everyone pays the same tax on each gallon of gas, ton of coal and so on.
As to your “Energy Bonds” idea, I presume it would be more appropriate as a state or local policy. In any case, it’s a measure that’s fairly narrow in scope and which would be compatible with any carbon tax (or with a lack thereof). It sounds like a good idea but I would generally caution against policies focused solely on supply. But perhaps if your idea can get people interested in the challenges and costs involved in integrating lots of wind to the grid, they will naturally come up with creative demand management solutions.
Natgas is generally suggested as a backup for wind power rather than coal by the way. Perhaps it’s possible to use certain types of coal plants as you suggest but the total cost might be prohibitive.
(#1244)Completely Fed Up
FurryCatHerder (1236), I said some standards will be diminished. Evidently not yours. Good. My disagreement was that Bob (Sphaerica) says none will be diminished because many have standards that he doesn’t approve of, and therefore don’t count.
Let me get this straight:
Rude == bad.
Demonization == OK.
Odd …
#1247 Robert
“The thing that has frustrated me the most in the wake of climategate is that those who are at the center of the issues have not engaged the skeptics directly in the aftermath.”
Skeptics? What skeptics? If you’d been following RC since it started (2004) you would have recognised long ago the difference between “skeptic” and “denialist”. Denialists, almost by defintion, are impossible to engage with in a reasonable and rational way. Many have tried – all have failed. You don’t know what frustration is until you’ve tried debating with a denialist. Their only aim is to spread doubt where there is none, and use lies and misleading interpretations of the evidence to do do. In fact, the last thing that they want to discuss is the actual science.
McI, and definitely not Watts, have not made ANY significant contribution to climate science theory. The only contribution has been to question some of the tools of scientific method (e.g. statistics, data measurement) that has lead to a strengthening of these areas BUT have not affected the theories in any significant way. In other words, statistics is not science and id McI has ever been right it’s a toy dagger pretending to be the real thing. Where are his publications? Why does he deserve the honor of being “engaged”. CA is best ignored – much more valuable to spend your time on this site where there’s a huge opportunity to really learn something meaningful about climate science. McI’s views (whatever they are – never clear) have become irrelevant as far as the science is concerned. Enough is enough. See for example https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
Your post indicates that you have not fully informed yourself of the science. Go to https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Climategate, for most scientists, was a non-event. It was not tragic; ironic rather, in that it exposed the likes of McI and other denialists as being not at all interested in the science per se but rather in their own self-aggrandizement.
Tragedy;”A drama or literary work in which the main character is brought to ruin or suffers extreme sorrow, especially as a consequence of a tragic flaw, moral weakness, or inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances.”
Tragedy:”The unfolding drama of anthropogenic climate disruption (plus peak oil)in which the main characters causing it (us) are brought to ruin or extreme suffering and sorrow as a consequence of tragic flaws (willful ignorance regarding; science and technology, limits to growth, energy management, unsustainable agricultural practices, etc), moral weakness (selfish greed and fear, and indifference to suffering of others), and inability to cope with unfavorable circumstances (sea level rise, droughts and floods, ocean acidification, heat waves, energy costs, food insecurity, etc )”.
“This is bizarre; ‘Willie’ (Nordhaus) spends much of that paper showing where Stern’s conclusions come from in a transparent way”
Uh, by saying that the report is merely a political hack so therefore we can ignore it?
And your quotes state that he doesn’t know what it says.
Now you say he does.
Have you read EITHER report?
“I’m sorry for disturbing the cosy consensus in this student common room and I will not be returning.”
All together now.
Aaaaawwww.
Jon popped over here, made vauge accusations, a badly formed demand of others time and effort, ignored the query to make a more concrete request, proclaimed this site failed in its remit of “critiquing Montford’s book” (where people get these ideas from…) and then cried about how there’s a consensus.
The only consensus is that Jon is wantonly wasting people’s time and being a drama queen.
Ray Ladbury (1252)
I don’t necessarily disagree with your first paragraph, and (a) is probably where it belongs. But, it remains the case, that Mann et al. 98 is one of the most influential studies, and it has played a role in at least popularizing the case for AGW, so I think Montford’s book is of genuine interest. It does make you worry about a lot of the proxies though, and just how sensitive the reconstructions are to teh statistical methods and choice of proxy series (I agree that I need to look into the other ones in more detail).
Anyway I take the opposite view to the usual one about the implications of the hockey stick. If it were *not* true, and the MWP etc. were major events, then it would suggest that there are pretty strong positive feedbacks out there, and that would make me worry a lot more about AGW.
1255 (Rod B),
Stop making things up! I said no such thing… you inferred it, without any real justification, and then you turned it into “fact.”
Now you are flat out lying, and using your lies to defame me.
Typical denier cr@p.
Jon,
I note that once again you seem to prefer “tone trolling” to engaging on substance. I’ve given several examples of why Montford’s whole approach is flawed and why it does not merit a detailed rebuttal. You’ve not responded to anything I have written, preferring instead to focus on “rude” responses you’ve received from others.
The fact of the matter is that the tactics Montford uses are identical to those of creationists and other anti-science idjits. It isn’t science or even history of science. If you want to understand what is wrong with Montford’s approach–and correspondingly why anti-science is singularly ineffective–then you would do well to understand why science works.
Science does not rely on any single study, or group of studies or even a single technique or dataset for its important conclusions. The subject matter of Montford’s screed is also supported by a variety of other techniques–not just multi-proxy reconstructions, but speleothermal reconstructions, borehole studies, and most picturesquely the dates of first bloom of cherry blossoms in Kyoto going back over 1000 years.
Science does not dwell on what a particular researcher did right or wrong. The emphasis is on independent replication and verification. This actually strengthens the conclusions as it tests for systematic as well as random errors.
Science has multiple lines of defense against errors self-delusion and fraud–of which peer review is only about the third. Ultimately, nature herself provides the last line of defense–fraud always stands out.
Finally and most important, science need not be practiced by angels to succeed. It works even for fallible humans. This is important, because I have found angels to be in short supply.
And it is very difficult to argue with the results. Science works.
“It’s worth remembering that Stern’s calculation assumes that this would be done in the most efficient way possible”
So why would we do it INEFFICIENTLY?
Or can the free market entrepreneurs only do things in an inefficient way?
Roger …
Only if you’re uninformed. So why do you *start* with a book written by a serial liar, when there’s so much good stuff out there written by scientists who work in the field.
Do you choose to read something by a creationist accountant in order to gain an understanding of evolutionary biology? Or might you start with, oh, someone like Stephen Jay Gould?
(I’m not suggesting Montford’s a creationist, rather I’m equating his anti-science stance against climate science with the dishonest anti-science attacks against biology made by creationists, because Montford is every bit as dishonest).
“But, it remains the case, that Mann et al. 98 is one of the most influential studies”
Nope.
How much of this:
http://www.ipcc.ch
consists of Mann98?
Why are later hockey stick research (also in the later IPCC reports) ignored? Are they not significant? Why?
Roger@1260,
OK, I agree that the denialists clambering all over any result suggesting a global MWP is absurd. It’s an own goal, as it would imply a very sensitive climate.
But, now, as to the significance of Mann et al. ’98, let’s say that you are a climate scientist and you want to get a graduate student started on multi-proxy reconstructions of paleoclimate. Would you give them Mann ’98 to read, or would you start them with some of the more recent papers? Mann ’98 is only of interest from a historical point of view, in that it was the first to successfully use the mult-proxy reconstruction using PCA. It is not relevant to the science of today. It is a side show. And what is more, the paleoclimatic reconstructions are also a side show. Montford is trying to get you to stop in the parking lot and watch his smoke and mirrors tricks so you don’t get to see the main event. It is a fundamentally dishonest approach, because it utterly ignores the overwhelming majority of the science.
Let me ask it another way. Do you think you are the only one to worry about the sensitivity of the proxies? Do you think that scientists who make these reconstructions look only at the period 800-1000 AD and that from 1960 to the present and say “Whew, hockeystick,” and call that good? The first and foremost concern of the researchers in this field is to understand what really happened. They are curious. They really want to know. So, of course, they will look other data and see if it paints a consistent picture. In other words, they are looking at the aggregate of the evidence.
So, it is not just one proxy that has to wrong, it’s all of them; and it’s not just the proxies that have to be wrong, it’s th proxies and the bore hole data and isotope data, and pollen data…. Just how likely do you think that is?
And remember, this is just peaking inside one of the small tents over the objections of Andy Montford. You still have the big tent ahead of you and a lot of other sideshows as well–all of which tell us we are warming the planet. Now, don’t you have to ask yourself why Andy wants you to miss all that? And if he’s directing your attention away from all that evidence, doesn’t it kind of raise questions as to how he may be treating his own subject matter?
And what is more, much more capable panels (e.g. National Academies) have looked at the very science Montford is criticizing–and they come down opposite him. Hmm. So it looks as if you have to choose between the credibility of Montford and that of the National Academies. Gee, that’s a toughie.
Rod B @ 1255:
I doubt that long-term anyone’s standard of living is going to go down. My experience is that people design in the variability, then squander the abundance. Like the comment about the 42″ plasma TeeVee — except that my big HDTV is an old CRT version. The other thing is that once people get serious, they really start to slash the =waste=. My clients typically cut their energy consumption by 1/3rd to 1/2 without negatively impacting lifestyle. I cut mine by 3/4ths before admitting I was an addict and joined a 12-step program.
And that 5KWh net consumption last month? Included several rounds of recharging the electric motorcycle, my teenager (and I, but mostly teenager) jamming on an electric guitar, watching movies in 7.1 channel surround sound, video games, electric lawn tools, you name it.
If my standard of living goes down any further, I suspect I’m going to explode. I just don’t know how I’ll ever afford paying so little for electricity. It’s just … horrible.
jon (1251): this book will bite you lot in the ass….READ IT for goodness sake.
BPL: I will, if you’ll read “The Physics of Atmospheres”–and work all the problems.
Jon: I’m sorry for disturbing the cosy consensus in this student common room and I will not be returning.
BPL: Don’t let the door hit you in the forked tail on the way out.
A handy reference for PV material resources and raw material costs:
“Materials Availability Expands the Opportunity for Large-Scale Photovoltaics Deployment”
Cyrus Wadia, A. Paul Alivisatos, Daniel M. Kammen
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es8019534
http://creutzig.berkeley.edu/Wadiaetal.pdf
It is almost diagnostic that a crank will choose not to engage with the modern evidence relating to a scientific consensus that they reject, but instead will attack the earliest publication that provided strong support for the proposition. Evolution denialists invariably attack Darwin, HIV denialists attack Gallo, climate change denialsists attack Mann, etc. I imagine that there are three reasons for this:
1) Nonscientists frequently misunderstand the nature of scientific knowledge, believing that the initial study constitutes a kind of “keystone,” that has been assumed to be true in all subsequent work. Destroy that keystone, they imagine, and the entire edifice will crumble. In reality, early studies are influential mainly by virtue of inspiring subsequent studies that approach the same question using different methodologies. It is rare that the “key” study remains the strongest evidence supporting a conclusion for more than a couple of years. Beyond that time, it is mainly of historical interest, continuing to be cited not for its modern importance as evidence, but rather to recognize the contributions of pioneering investigators.
2) The early studies almost always have significant flaws. Doing pioneering work is hard, because you have no examples to imitate–you are inventing it as you go along, and it is rare for an investigator to anticipate every possible weakness or objection. These are addressed by later studies. So it is easier to attack the initial studies.
3) It’s a lot more effort to read and evaluate the totality of modern evidence supporting a scientific consensus. Cranks rarely have the energy to do this. A scientist begins the study of a topic without a strong commitment to a single conclusion, so reading additional studies is exciting, because he is still formulating his conclusions, so reading the literature offers the reward of putting together a puzzle. But a crank begins with a desired conclusion in mind, and it can be discouraging to discover that every objection that you can think of to the consensus view has already been thought of and disposed of by somebody else.
AC – The [ongoing] business tax breaks here have to do with the political philosophy of the current govt and would be happening regardless. It has to do with attempts to lure new business into the province by having “the lowest corporate tax rates in N America” [their stated goal way before the carbon tax], and after the Olympic exposure it seems to be working. What you’re saying is the ‘dividend distribution’ is unfairly slanted toward the wealthy, I don’t see it. Yes, I do notice “the largest net income flows tend to go to the wealthy”, seems to be the goal in todays world, that’s a different, even if related problem, like population. If you think that a scheme where the amount collected is divided by the # of adults in the province and equal amounts were returned to each individual would fly in the real world …. very pie-in-the-sky. Money elects governments, not Mr&Ms-hourly-wage.
The dividend distribution via income tax rate reductions:
~43% off the bottom two tax rates.
[NO mention of the higher income brackets]
~13% off small business taxes. [further tax rate reductions planned regardless of carbon taxes]
~22% off general corporate income taxes. [further tax rate reductions planned regardless of carbon taxes]
~21% to low income earners as the “Climate Action Credit”.
It doesn’t look real unbalanced to me, other than the poor folks getting nearly as much as the corporations, but you’d have to know what percentage of the overall income tax and carbon tax came from each group to see anything further, and you’d have to understand that the majority of employment in this province is small business.
Not a perfect implementation, but still the first and nearly 2 years on, only attempt.
trll@1270. Good points. I hadn’t thought about nonscientists seeing early studies as foundational, with subsequent results built upon them. I’ve always thought of the structure of science as dendritic or even fractal.
[edit–that’s enough on this topic]
Sorry, broke link first time…
All those worrying so much about Montford and a 1998 paper, go over to my blog and follow the instructions for seeing where the AMSU-A temperature record is going. Still taking off like a rocket, nearly a third of the way into the year, with no known natural cause. If this carries on, 2010 will be a clear record year without a big El Niño to help it along, and coming out of a big solar minimum that The Australian was confidently predicting <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/sorry-to-ruin-the-fun-but-an-ice-age-cometh/story-e6frg73o-1111116134873″>presaged an ice age just 2 years ago.
Link right this time I hope…
All those worrying so much about Montford and a 1998 paper, go over to my blog and follow the instructions for seeing where the AMSU-A temperature record is going. Still taking off like a rocket, nearly a third of the way into the year, with no known natural cause. If this carries on, 2010 will be a clear record year without a big El Niño to help it along, and coming out of a big solar minimum that The Australian was confidently predicting presaged an ice age just 2 years ago.
AC wrote:
“What you need to understand is that Fee&Dividend has no definition of “poor” and that the dividends aren’t paid out of the government’s budget. Carbon taxes are simply paid back in full to the people and everyone gets the same cheque. And everyone pays the same tax on each gallon of gas, ton of coal and so on.”
I know very well what will happen if the government gets a fund with large amounts of cash in it. They’ll “borrow” against it like they have Social Security or begin to make “rebates” kinder and gentler in a “progressive” manner.
One can hear CSPAN now:
“Why is it that Daddy Warbucks, who last year made four million dollars in cash bonuses alone, getting the same carbon rebate check that Mary Jo Anne, a working mother of four struggling to stay above the poverty level?
“Daddy Warbucks is already reaping the rewards of poisoning our planet with CO2 enough as it is – it’s time we took care of those who bear the brunt of his excesses in a tangeable way. Can we look Mary Jo in the eyes and tell her there won’t be enough to feed her children this week because Daddy Warbucks needs it as much as she does?”
Heck, when they did the gimmick where they handed out income tax refunds mid cycle there was a large cry in the Congress that it wasn’t fair that people who didn’t pay taxes wouldn’t get a check.
We have a Congress that cannot stomach that a person who was unemployed for a year and paid no taxes didn’t get a tax refund. I have little faith that a flat rebate would ever be enacted.
Yes, I’ve been watching this as well, Phillip.
Short term, and all that, but it’s rather interesting, to say the least.
And it’s good fodder for snarky comments about the “cooling” promised by some interlocutors for about two years now.
SA 1193,
1. I believe psychic powers exist, having experienced clairvoyance and telepathy myself.
2. I do NOT believe those things can be demonstrated empirically. They are therefore not “science.” My personal belief does not mean I can prove it.
3. Yes, I have investigated the research on psi extensively, since I was once very interested in it. NO positive results stand up to careful investigation. The better the controls, the fewer the results. If you don’t think this is a problem for parapsychology, you know nothing about the scientific method.
4. AGW denial may be more dangerous than Bigfoot or Atlantis beliefs, but it’s the same sort of thing, as is creationism–another big, well-funded, socially active pseudoscience with potential devastating results if it succeeds.
Furry 1194: how many more transmission lines do you think it would take to power everything for 1,000 miles north of Houston from Houston?
BPL: Who the hell said I wanted to do that? The point of a wide-area smart grid is that there would be a lot of local power sources all tied together–not a distribution web for a single, centralized source. It’s clear you’ve never investigated the literature on this.
Jon (1202),
If you want anti-Montford arguments [edit-as mentioned earlier in the thread, this is way off topic, please no more on this]
RodB 1206: 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.
BPL: Really? So can affect the national price level just by raising the price of any one commodity? Wow!
Even if the money supply stays the same? And the velocity of money?
Are you familiar with MV = PQ?
Jon 1210: Science is not a consensus activity.
BPL: That is the statement of a scientific illiterate. Sorry. You’d better learn what “scientific consensus” means. Hint: It’s not a poll.
RM 1212: Shut off every use of fossil energy, full stop. Lose anything else unrenewable, while you’re at it.
BPL: Do you know what a straw man argument is? NOBODY is advocating doing that. We just want to replace fossils as fast as possible. No one wants to cut off everybody’s electricity and gasoline. Your thought experiment depends on counterfactual assumptions.
Jon 1221: I came for help, thank you for nothing
BPL: We offered help, you ignored it.
FG 1224: 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.”
BPL: No, it’s a scheme to take from those who use the most carbon and give to those who use less. If taxing carbon is wrong, how do you propose to reduce carbon use? If you’ve studied any economics at all, you know that levying a tax on a product imposes a greater cost of production, shifts the supply curve left, raises the price, and decreases the supply–which is the point. Your proposal for a credit scheme to fund alternatives is nice, but does nothing to directly attack the problem. To do that, we have 4 main choices:
1. Outlaw emissions of the substance. Unworkable.
2. Regulate it with a massive bureaucracy and 20,000 new pages in the Federal Register. Unwise.
3. Cap and trade. Worked with sulfates.
4. Emissions tax. Worked with water dumping in Germany.
….A) straight tax into general revenues.
….B) tax into revenues for specific programs.
….C) tax rebated to public.
If those are ALL wrong, how do you propose to do it? I’d take any variation on 3 or 4.
Jon@1210,
You do realize that multi-proxy paleoclimatic reconstructions are merely one tiny portion of paleoclimatic studies, do you not? And you do realize that the sole significance of Mann ’98 to the current state of paleoclimate is that it was the first study to develop a self-consistent multi-proxy reconstruction technique, right? And you do realize that the subsequent studies have reproduced pretty much the same results as Mann ’98 without recourse to any of the controversial statistics Mann ’98 employed, don’t you? And that you get the same results whether or not you use the bristlecone pines? And that independent techniques like boreholes confirm the results of the paleoclimate studies to an impressive degree?
And you do realize that even if none of these paleoclimatic studies existed that there would be good reason for concern merely based on the greenhouse properties of CO2–and that about a dozen separate lines of evidence all yield consistent estimates of CO2 (think about that, because it is really pretty astounding)? After all, Arrhenius had none of these and predicted global warming 114 years ago.
And even this is only a tiny fraction of the evidence.
So, I ask you, what purpose would be served by my reading Montford’s screed? I have no desire to put any of my change in his pockiet. He has no expertise in climate science or in scientific methodology. His entire mode of operation is anti-scientific.
And while you are at it, perhaps you can make a case for Velikovsky, the Discovery Institute, etc.
Jon, you seem rather fuzzy on how science works–as evidenced by your dismissal of scientific consensus. Indeed, it is not a matter of either consensus or evidence, but rather consensus based on the evidence. It is a matter of how strongly we can phrase our conclusions based on that evidence. The way I put it, if your rejection of a particular technique, idea, theory or method places you at such a disadvantage that you cease to have anything publishable to say–then that technique, idea, etc. is part of the consensus. Steve McIntyre has precisely one peer-reviewed publication. Richard Lindzen’s publications are few and far between. Even Roy Spencer has published more books and op eds in the past decade than he has peer-reviewed articles. It is not that they are unable to publish because they reject the consensus. Rather it is that their rejection of the consensus means they have no useful insights into climate.
Another thing about science. “Auditing” is not part of the method. There is precisely no value in taking the same data and the same code and seeing if you get the same results. There is very little value in an outsider going through a computer program line-by-line looking for typos. Independent replication would catch all of the errors these “audits” catch, plus many more.
And perhaps the most important thing about science: it depends on evidence and insight. I need not pass judgment on the character of my colleague. I only need look at his work. If it provides me insight, then he/she is doing science. If not, I probably won’t read what they write in the future. I don’t have to think they’re nice guys. I don’t even really have to trust them. I can independently verify what they have to say where our expertise overlaps–and I would do this for friend and foe alike. If it gets personal, it ain’t science.
[ok, no more on this please. -moderator]
flxible (#1271),
The issue isn’t that BC’s scheme is “unfair” (though it is). It’s that people won’t stand for high fees in this regime. You’re right that we should look at the details before drawing conclusions but, without any idea of what BC’s tax brackets look like, it’s clear there are those who will get no dividend at all and that most people will not be getting much. It’s nice that low incomes get a share, but what about median incomes? You need their votes too.
And, after saying “you’d have to know what percentage …”, I think you have to admit that the scheme is much less transparent than Fee&Dividend. And that’s a political problem.
Your new figures are different from the ones you orginally linked to by the way.
Again, your concerns about small business employment are misguided. An effective carbon taxes destroys employment in businesses that sell carbon-heavy goods and services. That’s the whole point. These tax breaks are counter-productive. You can still lower emissions with BC’s scheme but not in an efficient manner. The efficient way is to let such businesses shed jobs but to have policies in place which supports employment so as to help the workers find other jobs. And Fee&Dividend supports employment. It’s a simple, coherent and efficient scheme… but not a painless one.
If you think money elects governments, then what money elected Chavez? There are only two ways to get governments elected: votes and fraud. Sure you can use money to try to fool people but if it worked reliably, moneyed interest wouldn’t have to back military coups. I think you’ll find that moneyed interests have an easier time fooling people when people’s lives are not too blatantly wrecked by the government’s policies.
Fee&Dividend would likely be very hard to pass but relatively easy to sustain and to ramp up. I assume BC’s scheme was indeed easy to pass but, as you said, it’s already threatened in spite of its ineffectiveness. Imagine the outcry against it if the tax was high enough to force people to change their behaviour.
Frank Giger (#1275),
You have been misled regarding the Social Security fund. Not that it matters as the USA controls its own currency so the government’s debt is as good as money anyway.
I also don’t believe a flat rebate is likely to be enacted. But it remains the appropriate policy so it is what we should push for regardless. We already have the most realistic policy: inaction.
BPL (#1280),
Please calm down and be reasonable.
If you want to use quantity theory formulas, this is what RodB said:
M*V=P1*Q1+P2*Q2
If P1*Q1 falls (what RodB said) and (as per your assumption) M*V is stable, then it indeed follows that P2*Q2 rises (RodB’s conclusion).
Not that it matters. M and V are not stable. MV=PQ is a truism which uses ad-hoc variables that can’t be measured. In other words, it’s useless in practice.
If you use the monetarist definition of inflation, then RodB has not described inflation as inflation is then solely a function of M and V which you assumed to be stable. But with the commonplace definition of inflation (the price of the basket of goods), Rod B has actually described inflation. Is there any point in having such a quasi-theological debate?
There are historical examples of the general price level being affected by the price of a single commodity, starting with gold obviously. But you may also look at the Arab oil embargo and so on.
But a carbon tax would affect the price of all fossil fuels. How would that not be inflationary in practice? Businesses would have to raise the price of most goods and services because their costs would increase… unless of course you believe that they can lower some of their other costs to compensate for the tax of course. But how would that work?
We can’t predict what would happen to the price level following the implementation of a largish carbon tax because inflation is indeed affected by monetary factors. So it would depend on how the monetary authorities react. But I believe a reasonable reaction would be to avoid a recession (or worse) by letting prices rise. A largish carbon tax would distort relative prices and would tend to cause bankruptcies so inflation would allow a smoother adjustment.
FG 1275: Can we look Mary Jo in the eyes and tell her there won’t be enough to feed her children this week because Daddy Warbucks needs it as much as she does?”
BPL: And Ronald Reagan gets a social security check. I didn’t see any public outcry about that. Everybody qualifies for Social Security if they’ve ever worked in the US (yes, I know about the few special-case exceptions). Even if they’re independently wealthy.
Distributions to the populace as a whole can and have been done successfully. It does not always turn into the Republicans’ greatest fear, Income Redistribution.
BPL wrote: “NO positive results stand up to careful investigation. The better the controls, the fewer the results. If you don’t think this is a problem for parapsychology, you know nothing about the scientific method.”
BPL, we differ not in our understanding of the scientific method, but in our assessment of the facts as to what results have been obtained by parapsychology. In my view, your statement that “no positive results stand up to careful investigation” is simply false, and cannot be supported by an impartial assessment of the evidence, but reflects your own a priori belief, which you clearly and concisely stated: “I do NOT believe those things can be demonstrated empirically” (emphasis added).
In short, it seems that if parapsychology were to successfully demonstrate that psi phenomena are natural phenomena, and therefore subject to the same methods of empirical investigation (and ultimately, natural explanation) as any other natural phenomena, that would challenge your deeply held belief about the nature of such experiences (which your comments suggest you may regard as “supernatural”, whatever that term means to you). This may influence your assessment of the evidence.
Again, my point is not about parapsychology as such. It is about how our a priori beliefs (e.g. “puny human activities cannot possibly affect the global climate, and the very idea is preposterous, therefore climate science cannot demonstrate AGW empirically!”) influence our ability to impartially evaluate evidence; and about real skepticism vs. organized pseudo-skepticism.
Let me put it this way:
If the people who cooked up the campaign to discredit climate science as a “hoax”, and climate scientists as ideologically-driven incompentents, cranks and frauds, had simply said to themselves, “Hey, we’ll just plagiarise the rhetoric that CSICOP directs at parapsychologists! We can pretty much use that, word for word.” — then how would the denialist campaign differ much from what we see today?
I suggest that it would not differ much at all.
And I suggest that this parallel offers insights into the nature of organized “skepticism” even if — especially if — you believe that that rhetoric is appropriate when directed at parapsychologists, but inappropriate when directed at climate scientists.
Bob (Sphaerica) (2161), yes, your extreme remorse and sorrow as you described how people could no longer have plasma TVs, SUVs, and Mexico vacations was clearly evident… NOT!
FCH @ 29 April 2010 at 1:12 PM
Your energy (both principal senses) is admirable. You have done a better job than most of us in showing how to use renewable sources within the current economy. I wish you, and others, would pay more attention to how all that may change as use of nonrenewables is forced down, one way or another. Economic feedbacks will be enormous. Renewables are perking along and growing independently of nonrenewables only insofar as the infrastructure is, well, independent.
BPL @ 30 April 2010 at 9:22 AM
C’mon, man, at least address what I’m actually talking about.
BPL: “NOBODY is advocating doing that.”
RM: Well, as is forehead-smackingly obvious, neither am I. When thought experiments have us blithely running around at or near the speed of light, are the thought-experimenters ADVOCATING embarking on that journey? No, it’s a limiting case of some sort, introduced to help think about the range of states leading up to the limit. You knew this already, and should feel a bit embarrassed that I need to clog the blog by repeating it for you. Yes, my thought experiment depends on counterfactual assumptions. Pretty much all though experiments do. If implementing the assumptions were something easy and harmless you could do before lunchtime, it would be a real experiment, not a thought experiment. I welcome your best thoughts on the matter.
Re BPL 1280 re RodB 1206: Well, if we think in terms of ideal market behavior, and approximate reality as such, then, not counting the effects of the externality that justifies the tax, the tax should reduce the efficiency of the market as a whole – maybe this could take the form of prices increasing faster than inflation? If the externality is realized over a longer term then the profits that the market is seeking (though this may call into question the assumption of an idealized market?), then in the short term, there should be some actual economic cost. The reason to do this is the longer term gain. In realistic markets, the optimum is not attained, but it generally makes sense to expect the same relative tendencies (hence my support of a CO2eq emissions tax of some form).
Ric Merritt wrote: “Renewables are perking along and growing independently of nonrenewables only insofar as the infrastructure is, well, independent.”
I don’t understand what you mean by that sentence (the “insofar as the infrastructure is independent” part). Clarification requested.
As to “perking along” — both wind and solar electricity generation have been growing at record-setting, double-digit rates year after year; they are the two fastest-growing new sources of energy in the world; wind energy accounts for most of the new electrical generation capacity being installed in the USA today; and utility-scale concentrating solar (both thermal and PV) is set to explode, with many major projects already funded.
Perhaps “skyrocketing” would be a better characterization than “perking along”.
Philip Machanick @1273 & 1274: “the AMSU-A temperature record is going. Still taking off like a rocket, nearly a third of the way into the year, with no known natural cause. If this carries on, 2010 will be a clear record year without a big El Niño to help it along”
As we all know, industrial aerosols act as a negative forcing that masks or dampens greenhouse forcing. So why has no one mentioned an almost certain decrease in aerosols due to the global recession, thus unmasking a portion of existing greenhouse forcing?
The sort of catastrophe that “could never happen”?
Now think about nuclear.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN3024005620100430?type=marketsNews
AC –
“It’s nice that low incomes get a share, but what about median incomes?”
Aren’t the median income folks the ones who are most likely to needlessly consume the most carbon? Maybe they can better afford to change behavior fastest? I can’t afford a new electric vehicle, but I know middle income folks who easily could and don’t bother, cutting their carbon expenses with a dividend would just encourage that. Furry Cat Herder seems able to afford the high tech bells and whistles and reap her own ‘dividends’. Lower income renters who’re stuck with oil heating certainly can’t afford to convert their landlords property to electric [and anyway, electricity here is also subject to a “clean energy fund fee” to help finance new ‘run of the river’ and mega-hydro projects].
“… the scheme is much less transparent…
The transparency is in the fact that a yearly report to the legislature will be audited to insure that the system is revenue neutral, not that it passes your tests for “fairness”, nor any test of effectiveness [my point].
[The last figures I gave were from the “plan” as explicated at implementation, the first links may have been from the period when it was proposed, and confounded with general fiscal policy. The figures are for the first 3 years, in 2011 there will be a decision as to how much the next tax increase should be, based on effectiveness, apparently.]
“An effective carbon taxes destroys employment in businesses …”
Especially those that have no alternative to carbon, such as truckers, bringing your daily bread to your local market. [and note in BC tires are carbon-taxed, even those on electric vehicles]. In todays reality, there are many workers and employers who have no choice but to use the carbon and pay the tax.
“… let such businesses shed jobs but have policies in place which supports employment so as to help the workers find other jobs. And Fee&Dividend supports employment.”
Around here the folks who need “other jobs” are those who’ve already been displaced by N Americas situation, many freight truck drivers are ex-forestry workers – those who haven’t had to migrate to the Alberta oil fields, and many have exhausted their “support” from the system. Keep in mind that a very large portion of employment anywhere is dependent on our current vehicular situation, making them, repairing them, fueling them, insuring them, building garages for them, producing and transporting our goods with them and more. I don’t like that reality, but it isn’t going to be changed by shuffling employment around with a carbon tax. A great many things in our social and financial world have to evolve hand in hand. I’m sure the BC govt tried to head in the “right” direction, encourage development of alternatives, while doing the least possible damage to the current economy.
I’m having a real hard time recalling any federal, provincial or state govt in the US or Canada that gained power via coup or fraud [well, maybe not so much in the US] – and a harder time imagining one that got elected without a very significant amount of money behind them – not at all clear that the average uneducated working or middle class voter really has much say, and if the govt here changes next election [still years and a couple carbon tax increments away] it’ll have to do with other unpopular policies – not that the alternative party would be any better, but they would be likely to increase taxes on corporations, and very possibly repeal the carbon tax.
1289 (Rod B)
Please provide a link to the comment where I even said any of these things, let alone added the sort of emotion you are assigning to the statement.
I will explain this one more time. Read carefully. The words mean what they say, not what you’d like to twist them to mean.
Mitigation will take 1% to 3% of the GDP. If you like, you may think of that as costing 1% to 3% of your own annual income. As a result, you will have to cut your annual budget by a trivial 1% to 3%. For most people, this will mean eliminating either needless waste or trivial luxuries that they do not really need in order to maintain their overall happiness or lifestyle. Most people easily waste that much on nonsense.
In addition, there is a return on investment for this expense, so in the long run you will, in effect, have more luxuries, but you have to wait for them (did you go to college, or just get a $100K job right out of high school?).
Now, please re-read what I just wrote. I’m clearly not reveling in anyone’s misfortune, quite the opposite, I’m clearly stating that if we don’t wait too long, if we act now, then no one will really even notice the expense. This is absolutely nothing compared to the sacrifice our grand parents made in fighting WW II. It’s also nothing like either the statements or the tone that you are randomly, maliciously, and stubbornly attributing to me.
Now go away. You are a dishonest person who does not communicate fairly. You are clearly here to troll. I have no interest in either learning from or educating a person like you. The world will move on without you, no matter what you think or how you rant.
Good luck with that whole imaginary MWP thing, by the way.
FurryCatHerder (1267), there are many personal assessments that are quite sanguine, economically/standards of living-wise, with the positive aspects of getting rid of CO2 emissions and making the changes necessary to do that. Most either have no realistic feel how economies and societies work, or how infrastructure is built, or inappropriately project micro personal examples onto society-wide macro economics.
That doesn’t mean it can’t be done. But jumping into the dark pool with rose-colored goggles is a recipe for disaster.
That doesn’t mean that some can’t do it with little disruption, like yourself and some others.
That doesn’t mean that significant efficiencies can’t be made society-wide as you point out, though I suspect 1/3 to ½ is greatly optimistic when applied beyond a well-chosen small subset. If 10% efficiency improvement could be made society wide with no disruption of life style, maybe even with some improvements, that would be stupendous IMO – and fall within Bob (S..)’s assertion, too.
Still, rationalizing the reduction of some standards of living by saying they weren’t deserving in the first place is a non-starter – and really feeds the AGW hoax agenda wolves.
BPL (1278), before attacking FCH on her lack of reading I suggest you check out something beyond “Power Distribution for Idiots” and other La-La Land essays.
BPL (1280), you should review Sandbox-1, “supply and demand” before moving on to Sandbox-2, “MV = PQ.” With either of those, can you explain how raising the price of commodity #1 will decrease the price for other commodities – other than possibly (but not certainly) in the long term as Patrick 027 explained?
RE- Comment by SecularAnimist — 30 April 2010 @ 10:12 AM:
Parapsychology in this context is very tiring. Go apply for the JREF (James Randi) prize.
Steve